306 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com application of its meal period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and a regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage rate.” Lab. Code § 512(e)(2). See generally Araquistain v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 229 Cal. App. 4th 227, 236 (2014) (affirming summary judgment against meal-pay claim of unionized gas company employee; the CBA exemption applies because the CBA provides for a “meal period” even though during that period the employee was not necessarily relieved of all work duties). Araquistain decided that a CBA expressly provided for meal periods by permitting employees to eat their meals during work hours. “This conclusion comports with the clear intent of the Legislature to afford additional flexibility with regard to the terms of employment of employees in certain occupations, so long as their interests are protected through a collective bargaining agreement.” Id. at 237-38. 261 AB 2610, 2018 bill adding Lab. Code § 512(b)(2) (“[A] commercial driver employed by a motor carrier transporting nutrients and byproducts from a commercial feed manufacturer subject to Section 15051 of the Food and Agricultural Code to a customer located in a remote rural location may commence a meal period after six hours of work, if the regular rate of pay of the driver is no less than one and one-half times the state minimum wage and the driver receives overtime compensation in accordance with Section 510.”). 262 Carrington v. Starbucks Corp., 30 Cal. App. 5th 504 520 (2018) (affirming PAGA judgment in favor of employee; discussing section 558 civil penalties for unprovided meal periods); Brewer v. Premier Golf Props., LP, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1243, 1253-54 (2008) (section 558 establishes civil penalties for violating meal and rest break requirements). 263 IWC Wage Orders § 12(A). 264 IWC Wage Orders § 12(A). 265 Lab. Code § 226.7(b). 266 IWC Wage Orders § 12(A). 267 DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual § 45.3.1 (2002) (any time exceeding two hours is a “major fraction”); see also IWC Wage Orders § 12(A) (“a rest period need not be authorized for employees whose total daily work time is less than three and one-half (31/2) hours.”). 268 Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1028-32 (2012) (“Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on”). 269 DLSE Opinion Letters 1995.06.02 & 2002.02.22. 270 Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal. App. 4th 949, 963 (2005) (reversing summary judgment to employer; “The XATA computer system did not include a code for rest breaks. This may have encouraged drivers not to take their 10–minute breaks. Drivers said they felt pressured not to take their rest breaks because rest breaks ‘were not on the list of delays that were paid.’ One plaintiff stated: ‘Because of the pressure to complete trips quickly, and the fact that a rest break would cost me money, I never took a rest break except when I was waiting in line to load or unload.’ Apparently, the defendant’s management was aware that some drivers were not taking rest breaks.”). 271 David v. Queen of the Valley Med. Ctr., 51 Cal. App. 5th 653, 661-63 (2020) (affirming summary judgment to employer). 272 IWC Wage Orders § 7(A)(3) (“authorized rest periods need not be recorded”). 273 IWC Wage Orders § 13(B) (“Suitable resting facilities shall be provided in an area separate from the toilet rooms and shall be available to employees during work hours.”). 274 See DLSE Opinion Letter 2002.02.22, at 1. 275 See DLSE Opinion Letter 1986.01.03. 276 IWC Wage Orders § 12(A) (“Authorized rest period time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.”) 277 Lab. Code § 226.7. 278 Augustus v. ABM Security Servs., Inc., 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 676, 686 (2015) (reversing summary judgment to employees). 279 No. S224853 (Cal. Apr. 29, 2015). The Supreme Court agreed to decide these issues: (1) Do Labor Code section 226.7, and Wage Order 4 require that employees be relieved of all duties during rest breaks? (2) Are security guards who remain on call during rest breaks performing work during that time under the analysis of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal. 4th 833 (2015)? 280 Augustus v. ABM Security Servs., Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016) (Kruger, J., concurring and dissenting). 281 FAQ, Rest Periods/Lactation Accommodation, available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_RestPeriods.htm (visited May 26, 2022). 282 See, e.g., Schmidtberger v. W. Ref. Retail, LLC, 2021 WL 5024714, at *22 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2021) (denying class certification; “The Court … rejects Plaintiff’s contention that a policy of requiring employees stay on the premises during rest breaks is invalid facially.”); Figueroa v. Delta Galil USA, Inc., 2021 WL 1232695, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021) (denying class certification; “[P]laintiff’s argument embeds the notion that California workers are entitled to 10-minute rest breaks outside the workplace. This is not the law.”) (emphasis in original); Bowen v. Target Corp., 2020 WL 1931278, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020) (dismissing rest break claim; “a policy that prohibits employees from leaving the property during rest periods—without more—’is not sufficient to establish employer control”); Le v. Walgreen, Co., 2020 WL 3213684, at *7 (C.D. Cal. April 27, 2020) (denying class certification; “[P]laintiffs’ argument that a policy requiring an employee to remain on-premises [during rest breaks] violates California law is incorrect.”); Ritenour v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, 2018 WL 5858658, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2018) (denying class certification where plaintiffs failed to show a rest period policy “requiring employees to remain on site is facially invalid” of that it conflicts with Augustus); Hubbs v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2018 WL 5264141, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) (dimissing rest break claim; “an employer may require an employee to remain ‘on premises’ during such rest periods”); Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2017 WL 1353779, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) (affirming summary judgment to employer;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4