Understanding meal and rest break laws is crucial for employers and employees alike. Recent legal developments have placed a spotlight on the importance of adhering to these regulations. This blog post provides a basic overview of federal and state mandates and discusses a recent court ruling that could impact damage calculations in wage and hour cases.
Federal and State Requirements
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must provide unpaid meal breaks to employees who work more than five hours in a workday. However, the FLSA does not mandate rest breaks. Many states, including California, have implemented their own meal and rest break laws. In California, both paid and unpaid breaks are mandated, depending on the length of the employee’s shift.
Recent Legal Trends
California has seen a surge in meal and rest break class action lawsuits, with numerous cases accusing employers of denying or interfering with workers’ legally entitled breaks. Recent court decisions have underscored the importance of strict compliance, awarding significant damages to affected employees. A key focus of these rulings is the concept of “complete relief” from work duties during meal breaks, meaning employees should not be engaged in any work-related activities, including answering emails or handling customer inquiries, during their designated break time.
A notable recent development in California’s meal and rest break laws is the Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. case, decided in March 2023. This case clarified the calculation of premium pay penalties for missed meal and rest breaks under California Labor Code section 226.7. Previously, there was some uncertainty about whether the premium pay should be based on the employee’s regular rate of pay or their overtime rate. The Naranjo court ruled that the premium pay should be based on the regular rate of pay, which could mean penalties for employers who previously calculate based on the hourly rate as opposed to the regular rate of pay.
Some of the key takeaways from the Naranjo case were:
- Employers must pay employees one hour of their regular rate of pay for each missed meal and/or missed rest break.
- The regular rate of pay includes all forms of compensation, such as base salary, commissions, bonuses, and overtime pay.
- This decision could lead to larger awards of back pay and damages in meal and rest break lawsuits.
This case is just one example of the ongoing developments in California law regarding meal and rest breaks. Employers should be aware of the latest court rulings and interpretations of the law to ensure they are in compliance.
Implications of the Naranjo Decision
The landscape of meal and rest break compliance is evolving. Recent legal developments potentially increasing the penalties related to non-conformance with the law are one example. As a Los Angeles Wage and Hour Mediator, I often assist parties in navigating the law to resolve their case. With damage calculations being a key point in wage and hour mediations, the Naranjo case could heighten plaintiff demands, further complicating the resolution of these cases.