Seyfarth Synopsis: Employment-related cases pending before the California Supreme Court concern various questions that sometimes seem technical, but the answers they elicit will have big consequences. Questions raised by the current crop of cases include standing to sue, the availability of certain claims and remedies, federal preemption of California laws, what counts as compensable time, and—that perennial favorite—how to interpret the infernal PAGA statute.

We expect the California Supreme Court in 2019 to issue decisions addressing many important issues in private employment. Some topics easily warrant their own article or blog post, and will receive that treatment as the Supreme Court’s decisions emerge. But it’s not too soon to highlight some coming attractions.

Anti-SLAPP and Alleged Employer Motive

  • Is an employer’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike an employee’s suit affected by the employer’s alleged discriminatory motive? In Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., the Supreme Court has agreed to decide “whether an employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation arise from protected activity for purposes of a special motion to strike,” and “what is the relevance of an allegation that the employer acted with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive?”

Application of CA Wage-Hour Law to Out-of-State Employers

  • Does California employment law apply to non-California residents who work in California on a transitory basis? In Ward v. United Airlines and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, the Supreme Court has accepted the Ninth Circuit’s request to address five questions:
    • (1) “Does California Labor Code section 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who resides in California, receives pay in California, and pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California or any other state?”
    • (2) Does the exemption in Wage Order 9 for collective bargaining agreements (CBA) under the Railway Labor Act bar a wage statement claim brought under California Labor Code section 226 by an employee who is covered by such a CBA?
    • (3) “Do California Labor Code sections 204 and 226 apply to wage payments and wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who, in the relevant pay period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?”
    • (4) “Does California minimum wage law apply to all work performed in California for an out-of-state employer by an employee who works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?”
    • (5) “Does the Armenta/Gonzalez bar on averaging wages apply to a pay formula that generally awards credit for all hours on duty, but which, in certain situations resulting in higher pay, does not award credit for all hours on duty?

Arbitration

  • When is an arbitration remedy broad enough to preclude an employee’s resort to a Berman hearing? Under existing law, employers cannot necessarily compel employees to arbitrate wage claims unless and until employees have had the chance to bring those claims before the Labor Commissioner in a “Berman hearing.” In OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide these issues:
    • “(1) Was the arbitration remedy at issue in this case sufficiently affordable and accessible within the meaning of Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) … to require the company’s employees to forego the right to an administrative Berman hearing on wage claims?
    • (2) Did the employer waive its right to bypass the Berman hearing by waiting until the morning of that hearing, serving a demand for arbitration, and refusing to participate in the hearing?”

Compensability

  • Does an employee engage in compensable work while waiting for the employer to inspect a bag the employee chose to bring to work? In Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the Supreme Court has accepted the Ninth Circuit’s request to decide this issue: “Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages or bags voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7?”
  • Is walking to and from a time clock compensable hours worked? In Stoetzl v. State of California, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide this issue: “Does the definition of ‘hours worked’ found in the Industrial Wage Commission’s Wage Order 4, as opposed to the definition of that term found in the federal Labor Standards Act, constitute the controlling legal standard for determining the compensability of time that correctional employees spend after signing in for duty and before signing out but before they arrive at and after they leave their actual work posts within a correctional facility?”

Liability for Wage Payment

Preemption—By the FAA and the LMRA

  • Is a PAGA suit for unpaid wages immune from arbitration? In its 2014 Iskanian case, the California Supreme Court acknowledged that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state laws against class-action waivers in arbitration agreements, but also held that representative PAGA actions are not subject to mandatory arbitration. Now, in Lawson v. Z.B., N.A., the Supreme Court has decide to whether a representative action under PAGA, seeking recovery of individualized lost wages as civil penalties under Labor Code section 558, falls within the preemptive scope of the FAA.
  • Does federal labor law preempt a claim for termination wages? In Melendez v. San Francisco Baseball Associates, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide this issue: “Is plaintiffs’ statutory wage claim under Labor Code section 201 subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because it requires the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement?”

Remedies

  • Can an employee seeking unpaid wages use the tort of conversion? In Voris v. Lampert, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide this issue: “Is conversion of earned but unpaid wages a valid cause of action?”

Rest Breaks & Meal Periods

  • Rest breaks for ambulance attendants on 24-hours shifts. In Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc., the Supreme Court accepted the Ninth Circuit’s request to decide these issues: (1) “Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, is an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts required to relieve attendants of all duties during rest breaks, including the duty to be available to respond to an emergency call if one arises during a rest period?: (2) “Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, may an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts require attendants to be available to respond to emergency calls during their meal periods without a written agreement that contains an on-duty meal period revocation clause? If such a clause is required, will a general at-will employment clause satisfy this requirement?” (3) “Do violations of meal period regulations, which require payment of a ‘premium wage’ for each improper meal period, give rise to claims under sections 203 and 226 of the California Labor Code where the employer does not include the premium wage in the employee’s pay or pay statements during the course of the violations?”

Standing for PAGA Claims

  • Can a PAGA plaintiff settle his individual wage and hour claims and still pursue his PAGA action as an “aggrieved employee”? In Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether an employee bringing an action under PAGA loses standing to pursue representative claims as an “aggrieved employee” by dismissing his or her individual claims against the employer.

Workplace solution. Some of the issues raised by the above cases may seem relatively minor, technical, or limited to particular industries. Yet many a significant class action has turned upon issues no more monumental. We will keep our eyes and ears on the Court’s progress and keep readers updated with the latest developments.

Seyfarth Synopsis: New statutory obligations for California employers in 2018 will include prohibitions on inquiries into applicants’ salary and conviction histories, expanding CFRA to employees of smaller employers, expansion of mandatory harassment training to include content on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, and new immigration-related restrictions and obligations.

California Governor Jerry Brown spent his last day to sign bills in this Legislative Session, October 15, approving and rejecting a number of employment-related bills. Below is our annual summary of those bills that will have—or would have had—the greatest impact on California employers. All approved bills become effective January 1, 2018, unless stated otherwise. Watch this blog for in-depth pieces on the bills below that will pose the most challenges for employers.

APPROVED

Salary Inquiry Ban. After two unsuccessful attempts, AB 168 received the Governor’s approval to make it unlawful in California law for employers, including state and local governments, to ask applicants about their prior salary, compensation, and benefits. The employer may consider prior salary information the applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses, in setting pay. Don’t forget that Labor Code section 1197.5 already prohibits an employer from using an applicant’s salary history, by itself, to justify a pay disparity. AB 168 will also require employers to provide the position’s pay scale to a job applicant upon reasonable request. Read our in-depth piece on AB 168, and practical implications, here. Adds Section 432.3 to the Labor Code.

Meanwhile, yesterday the Governor vetoed the other pay equity bill we were watching, Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act, AB 1209. More on that bill below.

Ban-the-Box: Prior Conviction History of Applicants. With the approval of AB 1008, the Governor and California Legislature have created yet another protected class of individuals entitled to sue employers under the Fair Employment and Housing Act: applicants denied employment because of their conviction history, where the employer is unable to justify relying on that conviction history to deny employment. AB 1008 makes it unlawful for an employer to include questions seeking disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history on any employment application, inquire or consider the conviction history of an applicant before extending a conditional offer employment, or consider or distribute specified criminal history information in conducting a conviction history background check. If an employer intends to deny a position solely or in part because of the applicant’s prior conviction, the employer must make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the duties of the job, consider certain topics, and allow the applicant to dispute the accuracy of the conviction history. Read our in-depth analysis, implications, and tips, of the “Scarlet Letter Act” here. Adds Section 12952 to the Government Code, and repeals Section 432.9 of the Labor Code.

New Parent Leave Act and Parental Leave DFEH Mediation Pilot Program. SB 63 extends CFRA’s protections to smaller employers (with at least 20 employees within 75 miles) and prohibits those employers from refusing to allow employees—with more than 12 months and at least 1,250 hours of service—to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement. An employer employing both parents who both are entitled to leave for the same child does need not give more than 12 weeks of leave total to the employees (which may be granted simultaneously if the employer chooses). Further, an employer can recover the costs of maintaining the health plan for employees that do not to return to work after their leave exhausts because of a reason other than a serious health condition or other circumstances beyond the employee’s control. Beginning January 1, 2018 and ending January 1, 2020, the DFEH, after receiving funding from the Legislature, will create a parental leave mediation pilot program under which an employer may request all parties to participate in mediation within 60 days of receiving a right-to-sue notice. This bill prohibits an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions (and tolls the statute of limitations) until the mediation is complete, meaning when either party elects not to participate, withdraws from mediation, or notifies the DFEH that further mediation would be fruitless. Adds Section 12945.6 to the Government Code.

Retaliation: Expanding The Labor Commissioner’s Authority. With the Governor’s October 3 approval of SB 306, the DLSE will be authorized to investigate an employer—with or without a complaint being filed—when, during a wage claim or other investigation, the Labor Commissioner suspects retaliation or discrimination. The bill will also allow the Labor Commissioner or an employee to seek injunctive relief (that the employee be reinstated pending resolution of the claim) upon a mere finding of “reasonable cause” that a violation of the law has occurred. That injunctive relief, however, would not prohibit an employer from disciplining or firing an employee for conduct that is unrelated to the retaliation claim. The bill also authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations directing specific relief to persons determined to be responsible for violations and to create certain procedural requirements. Amends Section 98.7 and adds Sections 98.74, 1102.61, and 1102.62 to the Labor Code.

Immigration: Worksite Enforcement Actions. AB 450, the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” prohibits employers from allowing immigration enforcement agents to have access to non-public areas of a workplace, absent a judicial warrant, and prohibits immigration enforcement agents to access, review, or obtain employee records without a subpoena or court order, subject to a specified exception. This bill requires an employer to provide notice of an immigration agency’s inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records within 72 hours of receiving the federal notice of inspection—using a template created by the Labor Commissioner—to current employees; requires an employer to provide affected employees (i.e., those who may lack work authorization or whose documents have deficiencies) a copy of the inspection notice, upon reasonable request; and requires employers to provide affected current employees, and their authorized representative, a copy of the immigration agency inspection results and written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the action. The bill grants exclusive authority to the Labor Commissioner or Attorney General to enforce these provisions and requires that any penalty recovered be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund. Penalties for failure to satisfy these prohibitions and for failure to provide the required notices are: $2,000 up to $5,000 for a first violation, and $5,000 up to $10,000 for each further violation. The Labor Commission may recover up to a $10,000 penalty for each instance an employer re-verifies the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by federal law. Stay tuned for a detailed analysis of AB 450 coming soon. Adds Sections 7285.1, 7285.2, and 7285.3 to the Government Code; adds Sections 90.2 and 1019.2 to the Labor Code.

Harassment Training: Gender Identity, Gender Expression, and Sexual Orientation. SB 396 requires employers with 50 or more employees to add items to already mandated biennial supervisory training to prevent sexual harassment. The new content must include practical examples to address harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Employers must also post a DFEH-developed poster regarding transgender rights. The bill also makes changes to the Unemployment Insurance Code. Amends Sections 12950 and 12950.1 of the Government Code.

VETOED

Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act. AB 1209 would (as of July 2019) have required employers with at least 500 California employees to collect information on differences in pay between male and female exempt employees and between male and female Board members. The bill would have required employers to submit the information to the California Secretary of State by July 1, 2020, in a form consistent with Labor Code § 1197.5, and to provide an update to the Secretary of State every two years. The bill would have required the Secretary to publish the information on a public website if the Legislature provided it with sufficient funding. Yesterday the Governor vetoed the bill, stating—as many employers’ groups had pointed out—that the bill’s ambiguous wording made it unclear that the bill would “provide data that will meaningfully contribute to efforts to close the gender wage gap. Indeed, I am worried that this ambiguity could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.” He also cited the trust he has placed in his Pay Equity Task Force to provide guidance and recommendations to “assist companies around the state with assessing their current wage practices.” For more detail on implications of this bill had it passed, click through to our in-depth analysis on AB 1209.

Reproductive Health. The Governor vetoed AB 569 on October 15, stating that the FEHA “has long banned such [reproductive health-based] adverse actions, except for religious institutions. I believe those types of claims should remain within the jurisdiction of the [DFEH].” The bill would have added a provision to the Labor Code prohibiting an employer from taking adverse employment action against an employee or the employee’s dependents or family members for their reproductive health decisions, including the use of any drug, device, or medical service (e.g., birth control, abortions, or in vitro fertilization). An employer that violates this prohibition would have been subject to penalties under Labor Code § 98.6, as well as reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and interest, and other appropriate compensation or equitable relief. This bill would have prohibited employers from attempting to contract out of these requirements, by making null and void any express or implied agreement waiving these requirements. The bill would have required employers to include a notice of these employee rights and remedies in their handbooks.

Employee Request: Injury and Illness Prevention Program. AB 978 would have required an employer to provide a free copy of the company’s injury prevention program to an employee, or their representative, within 10 days of receiving a written request. A representative would have included a recognized or certified collective bargaining agent, attorney, health and safety professional, nonprofit organization, or immediate family member. AB 978 would have allowed an employer to take reasonable steps to verify the identity or the person making the written request and authorized an employer to assert impossibility of performance as an affirmative defense against allegations of violations of these provisions. Governor Brown found this bill to be “unnecessary and duplicative” of current regulatory proposals sitting with the Cal-OSHA Standards Board and noted that their advisory committee would be “better suited to determine how to properly implement requirements of this kind.”

BILLS THAT FAILED TO MAKE THE LEGISLATIVE CUT

Opportunity to Work Act. The notorious AB 5 would have required employers with 10 or more employees in California to offer additional hours of work to existing nonexempt employees before the employer could hire additional or temporary employees. This bill piggy-backed on the San Jose voter-approved Opportunity to Work Ordinance that, effective March 2017, would have required employers to offer part-time employees additional hours before hiring new or temporary employees. Read more on what AB 5 would have implemented herehere, and watch here.

Rest Breaks. AB 817 would have created an exception to Labor Code section 226.7’s off-duty “rest period” requirement for employers providing emergency medical services to the public. The bill would have allowed EMS employers to require their employees to monitor and respond to emergency response calls during rest or recovery periods without penalty, so long as the rest period is rescheduled.

Retail Employees: Holiday Overtime. AB 1173 would have established an employee-selected overtime exemption that would have allowed a “retail industry” employee to work up to 10 hours per day with no overtime pay during the holiday season (November through January). Overtime paid at time and one-half of the employee’s regular pay rate would have applied to over 40 hours worked in a workweek or 10 in a work day; double time would have applied to work over 12 hours per day and over eight hours on the fifth, sixth, or seventh day in a workweek. The bill would have required employees to submit a written request for the flexible work schedule for approval by the employer. The authors of this bill did not specifically define what “retail industry” would have meant.

Overtime Compensation: Executive, Administrative, or Professional Employees. AB 1565 would have exempted an executive, administrative, or professional employee from overtime compensation if the employee earns a monthly salary of $3,956 or at least twice the state minimum wage for full-time employment, whichever is greater. This bill would have had California follow President Obama’s FLSA regulations increasing the yearly salary exempt threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 for executive, administrative, and professional workers. (Those regulations have been enjoined by a federal court.)

Health Professional Interns: Minimum Wage. AB 387 would have broadened the definition of employers required to pay minimum wage to include anyone who employs any person engaged in supervised work experience (i.e., students working clinical hours) to satisfy the requirements for licensure, registration, or certification as an allied health professional. This bill would have applied only to a work experiences longer than 100 hours and would not have applied to employers with fewer than 25 allied health professionals or a primary care clinic.

Resident Apartment Manager Wages. AB 543 would have extended an exemption from Industrial Welfare Commission orders allowing employers, who do not charge rent to a resident apartment manager pursuant to a voluntary agreement, to apply up to one-half of the apartment’s fair market value (no value cap) to meet minimum wage obligations to the apartment manager. This was up from the two-thirds previously provided but capped at $564.81 per month for singles, $835.49 for couples.

Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act. Both AB 353 and its almost identical twin AB 1477 hoped to revise FEHA’s existing Vietnam-Era veterans’ status provision but failed to make it out of both houses and out of the house of origin, respectively. The bills would have expanded a private employer’s authority to institute and uniformly grant a hiring preference for veterans regardless of where the veteran served. The bills stated that the hiring preference would not have violated FEHA or any local or state equal opportunity employment law or regulation. But the bill would have prohibited the use of a veterans’ preference policy for the purpose of discrimination on the basis of any protected classification.

Credit and Debit Card Gratuities. AB 1099 would have required an entity—defined as “an organization that uses online-enabled applications or platforms to connect workers with customers … including, but not limited to, a transportation network company” (e.g., Uber)—to accept tips by credit or debit cards if the entity allows customers to pay with credit or debit cards. The bill would have required that the tip be paid to the worker the next regular payday following the date the customer authorized the card payment. This bill made it out of the Assembly but the author canceled its hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations so we may see this bill again next year.

Labor Organizations: Compulsory Fee Payments. AB 1174 would have established the “California Right to Work Act of 2017” to prohibit a requirement that employees pay into a labor union, charity, or other third party as a condition of employment or continuing employment. This bill would have made California part of the list of 28 other Right to Work states in the nation.

Employer Liability: Small Business and Microbusiness. AB 442 would have prohibited Cal OSHA from bringing any “nonserious violation” against small business or microbusiness employers without first notifying the employer of the violation and the right to cure within 30 days. This safe harbor would not have applied to any willful violation. The impact of this bill would have been far reaching—nearly 70% of California employers employ only a handful of employees.

Good Faith Defense: Employment Violations. SB 524 would have allowed an employer to raise an affirmative defense that, at the time of an alleged violation, the employer was acting in good faith when relying upon a valid published DLSE opinion letter or enforcement policy. This bill would not have applied to the DLSE’s prosecution of payment of unpaid wages.

PAGA: 2017’s Three Failed Efforts. 

AB 281 attempted to reform PAGA by (1) requiring an actual injury for an aggrieved employee to be awarded civil penalties, (2) excluding health and safety violations from the employer right to cure provisions, and (3) increasing employers’ cure period to 65 calendar days, up from 33.

AB 1429 would have limited the violations an aggrieved employee can bring, required the employee to follow specific procedures prior to filing suit, limited civil penalties recoverable to $10,000 per claimant and excluded the recovery of filing fees, and required the superior court to review any penalties sought as part of a settlement agreement.

AB 1430 would have required the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) to investigate alleged Labor Code violations and issue a citation or determination regarding a reasonable basis for a claim within 120 calendar days; and allow an employee private action only after the LWDA’s reasonable basis notification or the expiration of the 120 day period. Read our further analysis of the proposed PAGA amendments here.

Workplace Solutions.

For more information on how these new Peculiarities might affect your company, read our in-depth focus blogs and contact your favorite Seyfarth attorney.

By Michele Haydel Gehrke and Colleen M. Regan

Cal Pecs Blog is a BLAWG 100 Fan Favorite!!!!

In November, we announced that our Cal Pecs blog was selected as one of the ABA Journal’s 2014 “BLAWG 100.”  Today, we are thrilled to further proclaim that we earned the most votes from YOU, our devoted readers, in the ABA Journal BLAWG 100’s Labor & Employment category, making us the top Employment Law Blog vote-getter.  THANK YOU!  Your support of our beloved enterprise has us over-the-moon with gratitude and delight.  We promise to continue to earn your loyalty and readership as we work to develop content that keeps you abreast of California’s peculiar—and ever-changing—employment laws.

Click here to see vote totals for all 100 blogs featured in the ABA Journal’s December 2014 cover story, and click here to see a list of the winners of each category.  This victory will also be announced in the February issue of the ABA Journal.

Court of Appeal Permits “On-Call” Rest Breaks for Workers

Worth noting is a favorable, if unpublished, decision from the California Court of Appeal that was filed on December 31, 2014.  In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the appellate panel overturned a troubling decision by the LA County Superior Court.  The trial court had granted summary judgment to a class of security guard plaintiffs and awarded them almost $135 million in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.  The trial court’s award was based on a finding that carrying a pager and being “on call” during paid rest breaks violated the Labor Code and required one-hour wage penalties for each and every rest break, whether or not the guard’s rest was interrupted. 

Applying some welcome common sense, the Court of Appeal reversed, and held that being “on call” subject to interruption did not constitute “work.”  Although this decision is not citable, we are glad to know that at least one court recognizes the difference between being required to work (i.e., being under the control of the employer) and being relieved of all duties (such as the duty to remain on call). 

California Supreme Court Hangs Up On Employers And Denies Petition for Review In Controversial Cell Phone Expense Reimbursement Case

You may recall that in Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Services, Inc., the Court of Appeal held that, under California Labor Code § 2802, employees who must use personal cell phones for work are entitled to reimbursement for “some reasonable percentage” of the personal cell phone bill.  This appears to be the rule irrespective of whether the employee has incurred additional charges for the work use, whether a third party has paid the bill, or whether the employee has changed plans to accommodate work-related cell phone usage.  

On November 25, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review filed by Schwan’s requesting that the high court review this controversial appellate decision, and also denied its request to depublish the Court of Appeal decision.  The petition had wide support among the employer community, which has questioned the broad holding in Cochran and what it means for employers. 

Now that we know the Cochran decision will not be overturned, it remains to be seen whether other California courts will follow Cochran’s lead.  In the interim, employers are left to wonder what the Cochran ruling means for them, and how they  may need to implement or update their Bring Your Own Device (“BYOD”) and expense reimbursement policies to avoid potential claims (particularly potential-expensive class actions). 

We suggest that employers consult with counsel to evaluate their technology and expense reimbursement policies and practices to ensure compliance with this evolving area of law.  Please reach out to your favorite Seyfarth attorney for more guidance. 

By John R. Giovannone and Brandon R. McKelvey

When the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Brinker last year, employers were excited about the apparent legal clarity it offered in the area of meal and rest breaks.  We finally had our explanation of what an employer must do to “authorize and permit” meal and rest breaks, as Brinker succinctly declared:  “an employer is obligated only to ‘make available’ meal [and rest] break periods, with no responsibility for whether they are [actually] taken. [But] the employer is not obligated to police meal [and rest] breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed.” 

In Brinker’s immediate wake, employers could feel confident in their meal and rest break rule compliance, so long as they (a) relieved employees of all duty, relinquished control and permitted them a reasonable opportunity to take breaks and (b) did not impede or discourage employees from taking breaks. 

But now, the breadth of Brinker’s clarity is under attack.  In this blog series, The Battle After Brinker, we will explore the current controversy over Brinker and what it means.  Since Brinker was decided, the battleground has shifted from the text of the Wage Order to the text of Brinker’s explanation.  While we now know that the employer’s duty is not to police breaks so as to ensure that they are actually taken, disputes can still arise over the meaning of an employer’s duty to make breaks available and the ramifications of that duty on the employer’s break policies and on the viability of meal and rest period class actions Continue Reading Halloween Scare: Recent Court of Appeal Decision on Meal and Rest Breaks Begs the Question – Was Brinker a Trick or a Treat?