Last week, on April 30, 2012, in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the California Supreme Court ruled on an issue whether a party prevailing on a section 226.7, for an alleged failure to provide meal and rest breaks, may be awarded attorney’s fees. Surprisingly to everyone, the Court held that neither prevailing defendant nor prevailing plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 226.7.

In its recent decision Brinker vs. Superior Court (2012), the California Supreme Court finally provided clear guidelines on how rest and meal break provisions of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders should be interpreted.  This post discusses only rest break laws under the Brinker decision.  

In a long-anticipated decision  Brinker vs. Superior Court (April 2012), the California Supreme Court finally clarified the interpretation of Labor Code section 512 establishing employers’ obligation to provide meal breaks to their employees.

Under California law, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) is authorized to collect civil penalties for specified labor law violations committed by employers. However, in the past few decades, California enforcement agencies had declined and were unlikely to keep pace with the future growth of the labor market. 

Arbitration is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that allows employers and non-union employees to resolve disputes out of court by submitting the matter to a mutually-selected arbitrator. Arbitration is generally preferred by employers because the proceedings are confidential, speedy, less expensive than litigation, flexible, and most importantly final.

During the past few decades, there has been a fair amount of litigation taking place in state courts regarding the issue of whether insurance agents are employees or independent contractors for purposes of wage-and-hour claims. A few weeks ago, in Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co, a California Appellate Court