California employers may owe up to two hours' pay for skipping employee breaks
In the first appellate-level case to address the consequences of denying break requirements to employees, the California Court of Appeals ruled that workers can recover up to two additional hours of pay for each day that they were not allowed to take the meal and rest breaks to which they were entitled.
After being sued by some of its California employees, United Parcel Service asked the trial court to make a pre-trial determination of the amount of damages available under State Labor Code Section 226.7, arguing that the law allows only one premium payment per employee per workday. The court held that the statute allows up to two - one each for failure to provide meal and rest periods.
California law requires employers to provide nonexempt workers with a rest period of at least 10 consecutive minutes for each four-hour period of employee attendance as well as any additional period longer than two hours, as well as a 30-minute meal period for more than five hours' work.
In order to permit recovery of unpaid wages over a longer period of time than would otherwise be permitted, the additional pay is classified as a wage rather than a penalty, according to civil justice law firm Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff.
After being sued by some of its California employees, United Parcel Service asked the trial court to make a pre-trial determination of the amount of damages available under State Labor Code Section 226.7, arguing that the law allows only one premium payment per employee per workday. The court held that the statute allows up to two - one each for failure to provide meal and rest periods.
California law requires employers to provide nonexempt workers with a rest period of at least 10 consecutive minutes for each four-hour period of employee attendance as well as any additional period longer than two hours, as well as a 30-minute meal period for more than five hours' work.
In order to permit recovery of unpaid wages over a longer period of time than would otherwise be permitted, the additional pay is classified as a wage rather than a penalty, according to civil justice law firm Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff.
All data and information provided on this news blog is for informational purposes only. Infinisource makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Information regarding employment suits and other legal action is not updated after publication, and may not be current.