January 14, 2008 Source:
WorkInjury.com, Sacramento Business Journal
----------------------------
Prime Employment Law Issue for 2008: Employee Meal & Rest Breaks
Thanks to last year's unanimous Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole (to read our earlier article on that case, as well as the opinion itself, CLICK HERE), expect increased litigation this year in the employment law field of employee meal and rest breaks.
That's because the Kenneth Cole case, decided last April, basically tripled the potential value of such lawsuits by holding that the three year statute of limitations, rather than the one-year one, applied.
The Court based this finding on its conclusion that the remedy for a violation of the statute in question, Labor Code Section 226.7, was actually one for wages rather than a fine.
Section 226.7 reads:
(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. (b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.
Thus, retroactive damages for violations of this section can now be calculated over a 3-year period instead of over just the past year. This has set the stage for numerous class action lawsuits, with undoubtedly many more to follow unless the issue is revisited by the state legislature.
To read more questions and answers about this issue from the source listed at the top of this article,
- Help for the Injured Worker
