MEAL BREAK LAWYER

SUE FOR UNPAID MEAL BREAKS

Non-exempt employees who work more than five hours in a day are entitled to a thirty minute uninterrupted meal break, California Labor Code Section 512. Meals breaks can only be waived by mutual consent if the employee works less than six hours in a day, Id.

Employers only have to make meal breaks available to employees. The law does not require employers to police the workplace to make sure full thirty minute meal breaks, or meal breaks of any length, are taken. Employers must only present reasonable opportunities for employees to take meal breaks, Brinker v. Sup. Crt., 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1040 (2012).

Employers may not make it difficult for an employee to take a meal break or undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks, Varsam v. Laboratory Corp., WL4624111 (S.D. Ca. 2015). Employers may not undermine formal policies of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks, Boyd v. B of A, 2650207 WL (2015); cited favorably in Alberts v. Aurora, 241 Cal.App.4th 388, 406 (2015). Employers may not avoid liability for premium wages if it undermines a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks, and the employer cannot supplant a formal policy of providing meal or rest breaks by imposing conflicting policies [i.e. don’t lock door, you cannot turn patients away, you must spin blood as required by procedure, make it difficult for overtime to be granted] that impede or discourage an employee from taking compliant breaks, Novoa v. Charter, WL1879631 (E.D. Ca. 2015).

ATTORNEYS FOR MEAL BREAK VIOLATIONS

If the employee cannot leave during the meal period it counts as time worked, Brinker v. Sup. Crt., 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1036 (2012). One person in a store so it appears unfeasible to believe they could take meal or rest breaks has been deemed a basis for certification of a meal break class action, Bufil v. Dollar, 162 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206 (2008). Bufil stated that there was not any evidence indicating how individual managers defied company policy, or otherwise invented a way for employees working alone, or with a trainee, to take a rest break when they were not authorized to lock the store, ignore customers, quit monitoring traffic, or do what they had to do, Id. Moreover, Bufil found arguments about employees being able to read during business lulls and take smoke breaks throughout the day not to be compelling as a reason for denying certification, Id. at 1205. Cicairos v. Summit, 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 962 (2007) was cited by Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1040 (2012) for the proposition employers cannot be pressured not to take breaks or have informal anti-meal break policies enforced through ridicule or coercion, also see Cicairos citing to California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 11090(7)(A), (7)c.

MEAL BREAK CLASS ACTION LAWYERS

An employer’s staffing decisions do not mean the nature of the work requires on-duty meal breaks. Alberts v. Aurora, 241 Cal.App.4th 388 (2015) is a case that dealt with nurses, requirements nurses not abandon posts, requirements paperwork had to be completed during the nurses’ shifts, an employer who discouraged overtime, strict policies of clocking out regardless of whether the lunch break was taken, and upper management placed pressure on lower management not to offer overtime, Id. at 415-416. Given the paltry staffing of nurses the court found it interesting there was not a record of any of them being paid for a missed meal break.

When an employer violates the duty to provide an off duty meal break the employee is immediately entitled to premium wages as compensation without any demand or claim to the employer, Safeway v. Superior Court, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 (Supreme Court 2015).

California Labor Code Section 226.7 claims for missed meal breaks are subject to a three year statute under California Labor Code Section 226.7, Murphy v. Kenneth Cole, 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007), and four years under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Wang v. Chinese, 435 F.Supp.2d 1042 (C.D. Ca. 2006).

RECENT WON MEAL BREAK LAWSUITS

We have achieved the following case results for employees who were prevented from taking meal breaks:

$800,000 class action settlement for several hundred who took on-duty meal breaks
$400,000 for missed meal breaks, off-the-clock work, overtime
$174,250 for a group of several employees denied meal breaks

Call 1-877-525-0700 for an experienced meal break lawyer