Following the California Supreme Court’s remand of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Court of Appeal in that same case held that the defendant-employer had not committed “knowing and intentional” violations of the wage statement statute by not including meal period premiums on the wage statements and had not “willfully” paid all wages due at the end of employment by not previously paying meal period premiums that were owed. The Court held that, although the employer did not prevail on its defense that employees in a certified class action were subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements, neither waiting time penalties (capped at 30 days’ of wages at the daily rate of pay for each former employee) nor wage statement penalties (capped at $4,000 per employee) could be imposed against the employer given the good faith dispute that any meal period premiums were owed.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- New York Enacts Amendment to Limit Frequency of Pay Damages for Manual Workers
- DOL Shelves Independent Contractor Rule
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage and Hour Tip . . . Contractual Indemnification May Not Guard Against FLSA Claims
- California Court of Appeal Holds That Prospective Meal Waivers for Shifts Between Five and Six Hours are Enforceable
- New Jersey Supreme Court Confirms: Commissions Are Wages Under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law