Certified Tire & Serv. Ctrs. Wage & Hour Cases, 28 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2018)

Plaintiffs in this certified wage and hour class action contend that Certified Tire violated applicable minimum wage and rest period requirements by implementing a compensation program, which guaranteed its automotive technicians a specific hourly wage above the minimum wage but also gave them the possibility of earning a

Jackpot Harvesting Co. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 5th 125 (2018)

Labor Code Section 226.2, which became effective Jan. 1, 2016, addresses the manner in which piece-rate employees are to be compensated for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive time on the job (“rest/NP time”).  The Court of Appeal held that an employer complying with the statute’s “safe harbor” provision by

The California Labor Commissioner recently issued a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) memo regarding breaks and lactation accommodation. The FAQ memo contains no new concepts, but emphasizes the following longstanding principles:

  • California employers must authorize and permit a net 10-minute paid rest period for every four hours worked (or major fraction thereof). To the extent practicable, the rest period should be in the middle of the

United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1043 (2011)

Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(b), “[i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period… 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.”

Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assocs., Inc., 185 Cal. App. 4th 1363 (2010)

Plaintiffs sought to represent and certify a class of 4,000 current and former employees of Boyd & Associates, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California. Plaintiffs alleged that Boyd denied the putative class members off-duty meal periods and rest breaks and that it had failed to include certain reimbursements and an annual bonus payment in calculating the employees’ hourly rate of overtime pay.

Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1278 (2008)

Fred Brinkley, a property manager for Public Storage, asserted class action and individual claims for violations of Labor Code § 226 (requiring accuracy of paystubs) and § 226.7 (meal and rest period requirements). The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the employer on these claims, which the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008)

In this case, the Court of Appeal decided a number important issues concerning employee class action claims for alleged rest break violations, meal period and “early lunching” violations and off-the-clock/“time shaving” violations. The Court of Appeal determined the claims were not amenable to class treatment because individual issues predominated and, accordingly, granted

Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 134 Cal. App. 4th 728 (2005)

Former store manager John Paul Murphy sued Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (KCP), a small, upscale retail clothing store, for violations of the wage and hour law, asserting that he was improperly classified as an exempt employee. After resigning his employment, Murphy filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. The Labor Commissioner awarded