Workers who missed lunch breaks entitled to back pay, court says

[Omaha Steve]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

CALIFORNIA
Workers who missed lunch breaks entitled to back pay, court says

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

California employees who are forced to work through their lunch breaks scored a major legal victory Monday when the state Supreme Court ruled that they are entitled to back wages of an hour a day for as long as three years.

The unanimous ruling in the case of a San Francisco clothing store employee applies to thousands of workers in pending class-action suits against their employers. It may also help 116,000 present and past Wal-Mart employees in California preserve a $172 million damages award against the retail giant.

The ruling "ensures that wage/hour class-action cases are here to stay in California,'' said Leonora Schloss, a Los Angeles attorney who represents employers.

Labor union attorney David Rosenfeld said the ruling requires employers to be "much more careful about rest breaks and meal periods.''

Read more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/17/BAGHEP9OU21.DTL

[JuniperLea]

1. I can't believe they got away with this for so long!

California has very stringent labor laws!

[Sherman A1]

2. Obviously

Yet another case of activist judges... legislating from the bench. :sarcasm:

[Gormy Cuss]

3. What truly stinks is that the stores don't understand how much more productive workers are

when they get breaks at regular intervals. The law doesn't require them to pay for the lunch break, just to allow the 30 minutes of break time. When I supervised hourly workers we forced them to take the break no matter how busy or behind schedule we were. It was just common sense.

[dweller]

4. 52 x 5 = 260 x 3 = 780 x even min. wage =

a chunk of change for any/all deserving workers.

that's going to add up ...

dp

[LostinVA]

5. It's taxed as a bonus, though -- at 41%

I had this done to me when I was awarded backpay for a similar reason.