Highlights:
An otherwise facially neutral policy of rounding meal period start and end times are noncompliant with California meal period laws where the policy sometimes resulted in underpayment of meal period premiums.
Where records show noncompliant meal periods on their face, a rebuttable presumption of noncompliance arises.
Employers should consider implementing a system, such as a drop-down menu, whereby the employee’s choice to forego a provided meal period is documented.
On 25 February 2021, the California Supreme Court provided a long-awaited answer to the questions of whether California employers can legally round meal breaks and whether records showing potential noncompliance with meal period requirements create a presumption of noncompliance. Now, more so than ever, California employers should ensure that their timekeeping and meal break policies, practices, and increasingly important technology are up to date and compliant with the current demands of the law.
Chamber of Commerce Urges California to Ease Restrictions on Employers | Proskauer - California Employment Law jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
California Supreme Court Strikes Down Meal Break Rounding natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Rubin
LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – Plaintiffs using California’s Private Attorneys General Act to sue their employers can’t be sent to arbitration to decide if the case will go to arbitration, a California appeals court recently ruled.
On March 1, the Second Appellate District ruled against Zum Services, which is accused of misclassifying the plaintiffs and others as independent contractors. The company, a transportation service for children, tried to invoke an arbitration clause in their employment agreements, but the appeals court overturned a trial court ruling for Zum.
Letting an arbitrator decide whether the plaintiffs are “aggrieved employees” entitled to make PAGA claims goes against the purpose of the PAGA, the court ruled.