Hinshaw's 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 7: Rest Break Updates

In the spirit of the season—and keeping some semblance of normal—we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this seventh day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: seven swans a-swimming and AB 1512 and AB 2479.

Due to the multitude of wage and hour claims that are filed each year, meal and rest break updates are consistently part of annual employment law changes. Generally, an employer must provide and permit an uninterrupted rest break for all nonexempt employees who work at least 3.5 hours. Rest breaks must be offered at the rate of 10 minutes for every four hours worked. In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that employers must relieve employees of all duties during the rest breaks and relinquish any control over how employees spend their rest break. More ›

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 6 "Meal and Rest Break Changes"

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2019. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the sixth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me—six geese a'laying and AB 2605 and AB 2610. More ›

California Supreme Court to Provide Guidance on Meal and Rest Breaks

The California Supreme Court may soon provide health-care providers rare and much needed clarification concerning their wage and hour practices. It will do so in response to the Ninth Circuit’s request for guidance on the following wage and hour issues touching upon the meal and rest period rights of ambulance attendants: More ›

Nurse Denied FLSA Claim for Failure to Follow Employer’s Policies

An emergency department nurse did not have regularly scheduled meal breaks given the nature of her position, but was permitted to take them as work demands allowed. The hospital’s employee handbook provided that employees were to receive unpaid meal periods, the time for which would be automatically deducted from their paycheck. Employees were instructed to report in an “exception log” any meal breaks which were missed or interrupted so that they could receive payment for that time worked. The nurse did report missed meal breaks from time to time, but did not always mark them in the exception log. Further, she did not report to human resources or supervisors that she was not being compensated for time spent working while she should have been on break. More ›

Collective Action Cannot Proceed Where Representative Plaintiff’s Claim Rendered Moot

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Genesis Healthcare Corp et al v. Symczyk, No. 11-1059 (U.S. Supreme Court, April 16, 2013) , holding that the employee could not maintain a collective action once her individual claims were rendered moot.  More ›

Another California Court Holds Employers must "Make Available," not "Ensure" meal Breaks

For the past few years, California courts have been inundated with lawsuits filed by employees claiming that they did not receive their thirty-minute uninterrupted meal breaks per Labor Code section 512, which provides that:   More ›