By Michael Kun
Yesterday, only weeks after its long-awaited Brinker v. Superior Court decision, the California Supreme Court issued another important ruling on California meal and rest period laws.
In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that neither party may recover attorney’s fees on claims involving meal and rest periods. The Court analyzed the legislative history of the meal and rest period provisions and concluded, “We believe the most plausible inference to be drawn from history is that the Legislature intended [meal and rest period] claims to ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- The Gig Continues: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22
- Do the PAGA Amendments Create a Trap for California Employers? Yes. Are They Likely to Reduce the Number of PAGA Actions? No.
- The U.S. Department of Labor’s Final Rule Increasing the Salary Threshold for EAP Exemptions Took Effect, Except for the State of Texas as an Employer
- Plaintiffs in California Putative Class Action Lose Numerous Challenges to Enforcing Arbitration, Barring Unclean Hands
- California Governor’s PAGA Deal: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week