On July 23, 2012, in Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.), a case that the California Supreme Court previously had reversed and remanded, the California Court of Appeal stuck by its prior conclusion and held that insurance claims adjusters do not qualify for the administrative exemption from overtime pay requirements.
On Monday, the California Supreme Court held in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. that neither plaintiffs nor defendants can recover attorney’s fees in meal or rest break cases under statutes that provide attorney’s fees in actions to recover “wages.” The decision is largely favorable to employers as it decreases incentives for plaintiffs’
Today, the California Supreme Court issued a lengthy opinion in its long-awaited “meal and rest break” case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.
Here’s a brief summary of the opinion’s surprisingly favorable results to employers:
• Meal breaks. Employers must “provide” their non-exempt employees with 30-minute meal
The California Supreme Court announced today that it will issue its decision at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow in the much-anticipated meal and rest period case of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. The Court is expected to decide whether California employers must ensure that employees actually take meal periods,
We previously reported that a San Diego Superior Court found See’s Candy Shops violated California law by rounding employee time entries to the nearest six minutes, and that the California Supreme Court ordered the Fourth District Court of Appeal to review the case and decide the rounding issue. On Monday, Seyfarth filed the
We recently reported that a San Diego Superior Court found that See’s Candy Shops violated California law by rounding employee time entries to the nearest six minutes. The Fourth District Court of Appeal let the ruling stand. Yesterday the Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeal to review the case and decide
Yesterday, Federal District Court Judge John A. Kronstadt (Central District of California) denied certification to a proposed class of over 5,000 grocery employees at all WinCo Foods warehouse grocery stores in California. In Hughes v. WinCo Foods, plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all hourly employees at WinCo stores in California
Authored by Kimberly Brener.
On December 29, 2011, four years after granting review, the California Supreme Court decided Harris v. Superior Court, holding that the Court of Appeal mistakenly concluded that claims adjusters, as a matter of law, do not qualify for the administrative exemption. Employment lawyers had hoped that the Supreme Court would use this occasion to
Today, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the long-awaited “meal and rest” case: Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al v. Superior Court. The main issue in this case is whether an employer is only required to make meal periods available to employees or whether an employer has an affirmative obligation to ensure that
Almost four years after granting review, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Harris v. Superior Court, a case addressing the scope of the administrative exemption from California’s overtime pay requirements. The Court’s decision, which will issue within the next 90 days, is expected to clarify a very