CalSCt: California employers must make meal periods available, but don’t need to ensure that employees actually take them, state high court holds

Ruling at last on a case that has been pending before it since 2008, a unanimous California Supreme Court held April 12 that employers do not have a duty under the California Labor Code’s meal period provisions to make sure their hourly workers take their statutorily mandated meal periods; it’s enough to ensure that employees are offered the opportunity to take them (Brinker Restaurant Corp v Superior Court, April 12, 2012, Werdegar, K). This long-awaited ruling provides much-needed clarity on a vexing wage-hour issue, one that had divided the state’s lower courts.

“An employer’s duty with respect to meal breaks under both [Labor Code] section 512, subdivision (a) and Wage Order No. 5 is an obligation to provide a meal period to its employees. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so,” the court wrote. “What will suffice may vary from industry to industry, and we cannot in the context of this class certification proceeding delineate the full range of approaches that in each instance might be sufficient to satisfy the law.”

Class action implications? The Brinker decision below had reversed a grant of class certification to 59,000 restaurant employees who had alleged they were denied meal and rest breaks and were forced to work off the clock. Significantly, the employer had argued, if meal and rest breaks need only be made available to employees and the actual taking of breaks not enforced, there could be a myriad of reasons why employees did not take their breaks — reasons that could only be decided based on individualized inquiries on a case-by-case basis — so claims over missed meal and rest periods thus were not amenable to class treatment. Therefore, in addition to establishing the standard of liability for employers in meal break claims, observers had been looking to the decision for its potential significance on the class action front as well.

Nearly half of working parents are burning the candle on both ends when it comes to juggling career and kids

March 24th, 2011

According to a national survey commissioned by Care.com, Inc., 62 percent of working parents revealed that they are too stressed from managing their jobs and their families to go to the gym, call a friend or have sex with their spouses. A quarter of working parents (25 percent) report that they would leave their current [Read more...]

Oral complaints protected under FLSA’s antiretaliation provisions; Supreme Court sets “fair notice” standard for employee complaints to be protected

March 23rd, 2011

Oral complaints are protected under the FLSA’s antiretaliation provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning in a 6-2 opinion authored by Justice Breyer (Kasten v Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, Dkt No 09-834, March 22, 2011, Breyer, S). Resolving a conflict among the circuits, the majority found the scope of the statutory term “filed any complaint [Read more...]

Deloitte report reveals hidden costs of health care one year after health care reform

March 23rd, 2011

As health care reform marks its one-year anniversary, a new Deloitte report reveals that consumers are spending $363 billion, or 14.7 percent more, on health care than traditionally reported in official government accounts. This spending falls outside of conventionally-counted health care costs such as doctors, prescriptions, hospitals, and health insurance coverage. Demonstrating the significance of [Read more...]

Delaware can’t penalize out-of-state contractor’s use of Pennsylvania apprentices by imposing “permanent place of business” requirement; market participant doctrine did not apply

March 22nd, 2011

An out-of-state electrical contractor successfully challenged the state of Delaware’s practice of refusing to recognize out-of-state registered apprentices under its prevailing wage law regulations under the dormant Commerce Clause (Tri-M Group, LLC v Sharp, March 21, 2011, Rendell, M). The Third Circuit upheld a federal district court’s finding that the regulations facially discriminated against out-of-state [Read more...]

H-1B petitions for FY 2012 being accepted beginning April 1

March 22nd, 2011

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will start accepting H-1B petitions subject to the FY 2012 cap on April 1, the agency announced March 18. Cases will be considered accepted on the date USCIS receives a properly filed petition for which the correct fee has been submitted, not the date that the petition is postmarked.
USCIS [Read more...]