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
- One Nation, One Privacy Law: GOP Introduces Federal Privacy Legislation
- DOL Proposes New Safe Harbor for Selection of Designated Investment Alternatives for Defined Contribution Plans
- Watch: Joint Employment, Misclassification, I-9s, and Web Accessibility - New Rules and Rulings Reshape Employer Risk - Employment Law This Week
- Critical Infrastructure at Risk: Project Glasswing Urges Attention to AI-Driven Cyber-Risks
- Watch: NLRB Could Soon Have a Three-Person Republican Majority - Employment Law This Week