©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2024 Cal-Peculiarities | 307 meal periods and was discouraged from taking them, where signed attestations of meal period compliance accompanied every timesheet reflecting late or short meal periods), review granted, No. S253677 (Cal. Mar. 27, 2019). 259 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a) (recognized as invalid by Havrilla v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 454 (2016)); 29 C.F.R. § 785.2 (federal regulations “provide only a ‘practical guide for employers and employees as to how the office representing the public interest in its enforcement will seek to apply it’”; however, “[t]he ultimate decisions on interpretations of the act are made by the courts”) (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 138 (1944)). 260 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(b). 261 E.g., Bono v. Enter., Inc. v. Bradshaw, 32 Cal. App. 4th 968, 971, 975-77 (1995) (disapproved of on other grounds by Tidewater Marine W., Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal. 4th 557 (1996)) (affirming judgment denying employer’s request for injunctive relief against DLSE enforcement position that employers must pay employee for their meal time if the employer requires the employee to remain on employer premises during lunch; “When an employer directs, commands or restrains an employee from leaving the work place during his or her lunch hour and thus prevents the employee from using the time effectively for his or her own purposes, that employee remains subject to the employer’s control [and] that employee must be paid.”). 262 Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1036 (2012) (“the DLSE argues … the wage order’s meal period requirement is satisfied if the employee (1) has at least 30 minutes uninterrupted, (2) is free to leave the premises, and (3) is relieved of all duty for the entire period [citing DLSE Opinion Letter Nos. 1988.01.05, 1996.07.12]. We agree with this DLSE interpretation of the wage order.”). 263 Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., 896 F.3d 952, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming summary judgment to employer). 264 Godfrey v. Oakland Port Servs. Corp., 230 Cal. App. 4th 1263-75 (2014) (affirming judgment to employees; rejecting employer’s argument that California law was preempted by FAAAA, which provides that states may not enact laws “related to … service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property”) (citing People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transp., Inc., 59 Cal. 4th 772, 778 (2014) (reciting presumption against federal preemption of traditional state regulation over wages and hours, and holding that FAAAA does not affect UCL claim, not involving meal and rest breaks, by truck drivers claiming that they are employees misclassified as independent contractors)). See also Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637, 647-50 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversing summary judgment to employer; holding that FAAA does not preempt California’s meal-and-rest break laws, even though 9 of 13 federal district court decisions had ruled in favor of employers). 265 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 (hours-of-service regulation for commercial motor vehicle drivers). 266 California's Meal and Rest Break Rules for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers; Petition for Determination of Preemption, 83 Fed. Reg. 67470, at 67478-79 (Dec. 28, 2018). 267 Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. 2785 v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 986 F.3d 841, 846 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Trescott v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 142 S. Ct. 93 (2021) (“California’s Labor Commissioner, certain labor organizations, and others now petition for review of the FMCSA’s preemption determination. Because the agency’s decision reflects a permissible interpretation of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 and is not arbitrary or capricious, we deny the petitions for review.”). 268 California and Washington Meal and Rest Break Rules; Notice of Waiver Provision; 88 Fed. Reg. 55111, 55112 (Aug. 14, 2023). 269 California and Washington Meal and Rest Break Rules; Petitions for Waiver of Preemption Determinations, 88 Fed. Reg. 89010, 8901089012 (Dec. 26, 2023). 270 Lab. Code § 512(e), (f). A valid CBA qualifies for that exemption if it “expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees, and expressly provides for meal periods for those employees, final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning 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 238. 271 Lab. Code § 512.2 (a)(1), (2). 272 Lab. Code § 512.1(d), (e). 273 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.”). 274 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). 275 IWC Wage Orders § 12(A). 276 IWC Wage Orders § 12(A). 277 Lab. Code § 226.7(b). 278 IWC Wage Orders § 12(A). 279 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.”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4