[co-author: Clinton Ford, Jr.]
On Thursday, February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling addressing legal standards for meal period violations in
1 In its opinion, the court required strict compliance for providing meal periods, and specifically condemned the practice of rounding to the nearest time increment for meal periods. The court also clarified that a rebuttable presumption of liability applies when time records show shortened, delayed, or missed meal periods.
In
Donahue, the plaintiff filed a class action against her employer for failure to pay premium wages for meal periods that did not strictly comply with California’s requirement to provide a 30-minute meal period within the first five hours of work. Among the issues raised was the contention that the employer’s time-capturing policy rounded time punches to the nearest 10-minute increment, resulting in meal periods that were as short as 22 minutes being rounded up to 30 minutes. Th
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On Thursday, February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court
issued a long-awaited ruling addressing legal standards for meal
period violations in
1
In its opinion, the court required strict compliance for providing
meal periods, and specifically condemned the practice of rounding
to the nearest time increment for meal periods. The court also
clarified that a rebuttable presumption of liability applies when
time records show shortened, delayed, or missed meal periods.
In
Donahue, the plaintiff filed a class action against
her employer for failure to pay premium wages for meal periods that