The authors discuss meal and rest break litigation in California, a recent decision by the California Supreme Court, the issues that that decision settles and leaves unsettled, and questions employers should consider in auditing their practices and creating compliance programs to avoid future liability.
In April 2007, the California Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited decision in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, (1) holding that the additional hour of pay imposed under California Labor Code Section 226.7, (2) for missed meal or rest breaks is a "wage" subject to a three year statute of limitations. In doing so, the court reversed a clear trend among the appellate courts in the state, where four of five decisions on the issue rejected the conclusion adopted by the Supreme Court. The decision raises the cost of noncompliance with California's regulations mandating regular breaks throughout the workday, and will no doubt increase class wage and hour litigation in the state.
After a short background discussion of meal and rest break litigation in California before the Murphy decision, this article discusses Murphy 's holding and rationale, the issues it settles and leaves unsettled, and finally the questions employers should consider in auditing their practices and creating compliance programs to avoid future liability.
Click here to download a pdf of the complete article.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
