California employers have a lot to keep their eye on over the last few weeks. For this week’s Friday’s Five article, here is a list of five key issues California employers should know about and how these issues will likely impact their workplace:
1. New decision approves striking unmanageable PAGA claims.
In Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., 896 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2018), an employee brought a putative class action alleging that Taco Bell’s discounted meal policy effectively denied employees the ability to take a duty free meal break. At issue in this case was Taco Bell’s policy of offering a discounted meal from the
On May 8, 2018, the court in Ibarra v. Wells Fargo Bank entered an order awarding Plaintiffs who filed a class action against the bank $97.2 million for rest break violations. The original complaint alleged various wage and hour violations, and after the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, all but the rest
California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that employees are entitled to receive premium wages in the form of one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for a missed meal or rest break.
An employee who works more than three and one-half hours per day must be permitted to take a
In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on employer’s obligations to permit employees to take “off-duty” rest periods. The Court’s ruling ends 2016 with a major ruling on issues surrounding rest periods under California law.
The plaintiffs worked as security guards for defendant ABM. The employer required
As many California employers know, ignoring or failing to comply with the requirements of providing meal and rest breaks in California can create huge liability for companies. California law does allow for “on-duty” meal periods, whereby the employee takes a meal break, but while still working. Employers sometimes view this exception as an easy alternative
California Labor Code section 226.7 provides that employees are entitled to receive premium payment in the form of one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for a missed meal or rest break. As the appellate court admitted in UPS v. Superior Court, this Labor Code provision is amenable to