Missed Rest Break Victory in California Supreme Court

June 13, 2007 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine

In April the California Supreme Court unanimously held that the “additional hour of pay” provided for in Labor Code Section 226.7 to compensate employees for missed meal and rest periods is a wage, not a penalty. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094. The decision is significant because of its implications for the applicable statute of limitations. In California, a “penalty” is subject to a one-year statute of limitations, while a “wage” is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Because the remedy for missed meal and rest periods is a wage, the Court now makes clear that claimants may go back three years to recover for missed meal and rest periods.

In addition, because missed meal and rest periods are wages, a claimants may bring suit for these remedies under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The statute of limitations for that law is four years. Thus, lawsuits brought under the Unfair Competition Law can recover for unpaid wages dating back four years from the date the lawsuit is filed.

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.