Court Approves Daily Meal/Rest Period Penalty Of Two Hours

     It has been nearly three years since the California Supreme Court accepted the Brinker case to define the rules employers must follow in providing employees with meal and rest breaks under California law.   In the meantime, costly meal and rest break class actions continue to be filed with an alarming frequency, exposing California employers to millions in damages.

      A recent case decided by the Court of Appeal involving UPS (Allen v. United Parcel Service, Inc.)  clarifies an important meal and rest break issue - How many hours of pay can an employer owe each day for missed meal and rest breaks?

      At issue was the interpretation of Labor Code Section 226.7 which states that "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." 

     UPS argued that the statute means an employer can owe only one hour of pay each day, no matter how many meal or rest breaks were missed or not provided.  The employees asserted that the statute allows up to two hours of pay each day - one hour for missed meal breaks and another for missed rest breaks. 

     The trial court ruled in favor of the employees, and UPS appealed. Unfortunately for UPS, the Court of Appeal agreed with the employees. Thus, an employer can owe one hour of pay for a non compliant meal break and an additional hour of pay for not providing one or more of the required daily rest breaks.

    The decision has one silver lining for employers. It clarifies that employers can be liable for only one meal and one rest period violation per day. Thus, if an employee misses two or more rest breaks during the day, only one hour of pay is owed.  Likewise, where a second meal break (on a long day) is required, only one additional hour of pay is owed for the missed meal breaks.

    Employers must continue to vigilantly monitor and enforce their meal and rest break policies or face significant exposure for missed breaks.  

Sincerely, 

Richard S. Rosenberg

Partner

BRG&S, LLP