The court also held that "records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations." This means that employers should be prepared to prove that they provided the full meal break. "The California Supreme Court declared that compliance with the 30-minute meal period requirement must be based on precise actual time with no rounding permitted," explained Mark Terman, an attorney with Faegre Drinker in Los Angeles. The employer's time-keeping system included a dropdown menu for employees to list whether their meal break was short, missed or delayed, but the system didn't show whether the time was rounded up to 30 minutes. AMN Services, LLC was whether an employer could have a neutral practice that rounded employee time-clock punches to the nearest 10-minute increment. "To avoid liability, an employer must provide its employees with full and timely meal periods whenever those meal periods are required," the California Supreme Court said, noting that "even a minor infringement of the meal period triggers the premium pay obligation."ĭonohue v. So, if an employee doesn't receive a full meal break, the employer will need to pay the employee a one-hour premium. A second break must be provided after 10 hours but can be waived if the employee works no more than 12 hours and the first break was taken. In limited circumstances, an employee may be permitted to have an "on-duty" meal period, but the time must be paid at the worker's regular rate of pay.Įmployees are entitled to one hour of pay for each day a meal period rule wasn't followed. Must receive a 30-minute unpaid meal break for every five hours they work they can waive their right to take a meal break only if they work no more than six hours. "It provides a clear direction that any kind of rounding practice related to recording meal periods is prohibited." "The ruling is significant," said Mark Payne, an attorney with Troutman Pepper in Orange County, Calif.
25.Īdditionally, the court said, if time records show evidence of noncompliant meal periods, the court will assume a violation was committed unless the employer proves otherwise.
"The meal period provisions are designed to prevent even minor infringements on meal period requirements, and rounding is incompatible with that objective," wrote Justice Goodwin Liu for the California Supreme Court on Feb. California employers are prohibited from rounding time-clock punches for employee meal periods, according to a recent ruling by the state's high court.Įmployees in the Golden State generally must receive a 30-minute unpaid meal break for every five hours they work.
0 kommentar(er)
