By Michael Kun
Yesterday, only weeks after its long-awaited Brinker v. Superior Court decision, the California Supreme Court issued another important ruling on California meal and rest period laws.
In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that neither party may recover attorney’s fees on claims involving meal and rest periods. The Court analyzed the legislative history of the meal and rest period provisions and concluded, “We believe the most plausible inference to be drawn from history is that the Legislature intended [meal and rest period] claims to ...
By Michael Kun
This morning, the California Supreme Court has just issued its long-awaited decision in the Brinker case regarding meal and rest period requirements. It is largely, but not entirely, a victory for employers. A copy of the decision is here.
A few highlights of the decision:
On rest periods, the Court confirmed the certification of a rest period class because Brinker’s written policy arguably did not comply with the law as to the second rest period in a day. In so doing, it clarified when employees are entitled to rest periods:
- Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Video: New H-1B Visa Fee, EEOC Shutters Disparate Impact Cases, Key Labor Roles Confirmed - Employment Law This Week
- New $100,000 H-1B Fee Proclamation – Implications and Action Steps
- Video: FTC Backs Off Non-Compete Ban, Warns Health Care Employers - Employment Law This Week
- Artificial Intelligence and Disparate Impact Liability: How the EEOC’s End to Disparate Impact Claims Affects Workplace AI
- Reminder: Massachusetts Salary Range Disclosure Requirements Take Effect in October