Co-Authored by Sophia Kwan and Brandon McKelvey
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’
Co-authored by Dana Peterson, Brandon McKelvey, and Sophia Kwan
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
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Issues Major Meal and Rest Period Decision This Morning
Co-authored by Jeffrey Berman, Dana Peterson, and Brandon McKelvey
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
Authored by Simon Yang
In American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (“American Trucking”) last September, the Ninth Circuit clarified standards regarding the preemptory breadth of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (the “FAAAA”). The Ninth Circuit explained that FAAAA preemption is proper when a state law or regulation, directly or indirectly, binds an employer “to
Co-Authored by Brandon McKelvey and Sophia Kwan
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 Brian Ashe and Laura Reathaford
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
Co-authored by Alfred Sanderson and Brandon McKelvey
On February 16, 2011, a California Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s denial of class certification on meal and rest period claims brought against a health services company with hospitals across the state. In Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., the court ruled that employers need only make meal and rest periods