Insights

On April 12, 2012 the California Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant, the long-awaited case which has important implications for the workplace about whether California law (1) requires employers to "ensure" that employees take their 30-minute meal periods or merely requires that employers make meal periods "available," (2) whether an employee is entitled to a meal period for every five hour work period (the so-called "rolling five" requirement) or only requires one meal period for each day in which the employee's work period exceeds five hours and a second period on each day in which the employee's work period exceeds ten hours, (3) the timing of rest breaks, and (4) the extent to which the employees can bring class action lawsuits for alleged wage and hour violations. To see how the California Supreme Court, in its unanimous opinion issued today, answered those questions, please see the attached pdf document.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Superior Court limits both the application and importance of the “administrative/production worker dichotomy,” a doctrine that has been used by many courts to find that employees did not qualify for the administrative exemption.

On October 9, 2011, Governor Brown signed legislation that prohibits the willful misclassification of individuals as independent contractors. The new law creates civil penalties of between $5,000 and $25,000 for each willful misclassification of a worker.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that federal arbitration law clears the way for arbitration agreements in California to bar claims from being brought on behalf of a class. Employment arbitration agreements can now be used to prevent class action claims against California employers.