Numerous changes to California employment laws have developed over the past year. Employers determined to steer clear of possible legal action must familiarize themselves with the new legislation and take necessary steps regarding the amendments emerging as a result of consequential class action lawsuits. Interestingly, two decisive lawsuits that are playing a role in amending California employment laws are both related to the issue of employee meal and rest breaks.
United Parcel Service vs. the Superior Court
The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a class action consisting of 32 coordinated lawsuits filed by UPS employees. The employees claimed that they were denied both meal and rest breaks and requested a change in premium pay policy. Until now, the labor board in California required employers to pay one hour of premium pay per day, regardless of the number of meal and rest periods missed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees who called for entitlement of two hours of premium pay for missing both one meal and one rest period.
In light of this verdict, employers must ensure that their employees are provided with adequate breaks for both meals and rest. Employers must afford nonexempt employees with a 10-minute paid rest break for every 4 hours of work.
Brinker Restaurant Corporation vs. the Superior Court
Employers wait in suspense for the verdict of the Brinker case, which after drawn out legal proceedings is slated to conclude this spring. The central issue to be resolved is whether or not employers are required to *enforce* or merely *provide* the opportunity for meal and rest breaks for employees. The Brinker case has been combined with a collection of other cases pertaining to related issues, such as the timing of rest periods. Can employers be flexible in the timing of rest breaks, or are they obligated to specifically provide rest periods during the middle of each work shift?
For large employers, or those currently facing similar class action lawsuits, the outcome of this class action is particularly pertinent as an unfavorable ruling will create logistical challenges that will require them to reassess their current lunch and break period schedule. In the interim, employers are recommended to proceed cautiously and ensure that employees are availing themselves of meal and rest breaks and that meal and rest periods are generally granted in the middle of the shift. Policies of this nature will prevent difficulties in the case of an unfavorable ruling for employers.
The are just two major cases affecting California labor law in 2012. Click here to read Part II of this series.

We are proud to present our free HR webinar topic, THIS COMING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23rd.
As we move further into 2012, employers must take note of a disturbing trend in the human resources arena: the persistent rise of discrimination-related lawsuits. While employee lawsuits and litigation-hungry lawyers are nothing new to American businesses, the dramatic increase in discrimination lawsuits demands that employers take note. Challenged with keeping their business afloat, most employers don’t have the time or resources to adequately stay abreast of this alarming trend.

