3 ms·

Additionally California PAGA lawsuits are notorious for nearly bankrupting small businesses. This case wasn't PAGA, but still people need to realize that someti

Additionally California PAGA lawsuits are notorious for nearly bankrupting small businesses. This case wasn't PAGA, but still people need to realize that sometimes these things are more nuanced than they appear. Infractions are 200 dollars per infraction for every employee, and are religiously perused by private law firms. For example, if a company with 100 employees let employees take lunch whenever they wanted, they would be sued for 20K per day this occurred since employers are required to require employees take lunch within 5 hours of starting the day, meaning they could easily look at millions of dollars of fines for trying to be nice to employees that a private law firm would sue them over. And in the end the majority of the settlement will go to the law firm and the actual person who sued will get 1/100th of the remaining amount for all this trouble.

rc_kas 2y ago
I like your level of detailed information my friend.
vitus 2y ago
I don't have first-hand experience with PAGA lawsuits, and I am not a lawyer, but: > employers are required to require employees take lunch within 5 hours of starting the day This seems like a misrepresentation of the relevant statutes. Per Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, > In a unanimous opinion authored by Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, the court explained that neither state statutes nor the orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) compel an employer to ensure employees cease all work during meal periods. Instead, under state law an employer must provide its employees an uninterrupted 30-minute duty-free period during which the employee is at liberty to come and go as he or she pleases. https://www.courts.ca.gov/17489.htm https://www.courts.ca.gov/17489.htm In other words: if the employee has the option of taking that half hour break at an appropriate time of day, then I don't see a lawsuit as being justified unless there's legislation from the past 12 years (very plausible) that renders this precedent obsolete.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  I'm sure what I said about 5 hours is mostly accurate, the specific rule in California labor law mentions the 5 hour requirement. > In compliance with California labor laws, nonexempt employees are entitled to an unpaid meal or lunch break lasting a minimum of 30 minutes for shifts exceeding five hours. This break, which should commence before the completion of the fifth hour of work, can be waived only if the workday does not surpass six hours. This means Employees are basically required to take the meal break before 5 hours, because a more forgiving policy of take it whenever you want will incur a PAGA lawsuit that will be settled due to the extreme potential fines.
  - vitus 2y ago
    > the specific rule in California labor law mentions the 5 hour requirement. You're not wrong here. > This means Employees are basically required to take the meal break before 5 hours I don't think this characterization is supported, though. For one, the law only applies to non-exempt (usually: non-salaried) employees, and for another, case law (typically citing Brinker) consistently holds that the employer is not required to enforce that the employee takes the full meal break at the appropriate time, merely that the employer provide opportunity to do so. The actual opinion from Brinker states: > Specifically, we conclude that (1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; (2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; (3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; (4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and (5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so. https://casetext.com/case/brinker-restaurant-corp-v-superior-court https://casetext.com/case/brinker-restaurant-corp-v-superior... One interesting application in case law that I found is that apparently being on-call during a meal break is sufficient to result in a violation. https://casetext.com/analysis/california-supreme-court-no-on-duty-on-call-rest-breaks https://casetext.com/analysis/california-supreme-court-no-on...
ryandrake 2y ago
A business employing 100 people should have at least a General Counsel, if not multiple lawyers who can advise them such that they structure their break schedule to not violate state law. That's literally the purpose of having in-house legal counsel. Heck, a business employing 2 people should have a legal advisor. If I were starting a startup with my own money, a lawyer would be employee number one.
- nickff 2y ago
  Lawyers don't know all the (state or federal) laws, they do not pretend to be able to assess all your legal risks, just some of the most likely ones.
- elevatedastalt 2y ago
  Are you even for real right now? You expect a company of 100 people to have multiple lawyers on payroll pouring over labor statutes? There exists companies outside the frenzied world of VC-funded startups.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    What serious company does not have a single lawyer to consult with?

rc_kas 2y ago

I like your level of detailed information my friend.

vitus 2y ago

I don't have first-hand experience with PAGA lawsuits, and I am not a lawyer, but: > employers are required to require employees take lunch within 5 hours of starting the day This seems like a misrepresentation of the relevant statutes. Per Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, > In a unanimous opinion authored by Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, the court explained that neither state statutes nor the orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) compel an employer to ensure employees cease all work during meal periods. Instead, under state law an employer must provide its employees an uninterrupted 30-minute duty-free period during which the employee is at liberty to come and go as he or she pleases. https://www.courts.ca.gov/17489.htm https://www.courts.ca.gov/17489.htm In other words: if the employee has the option of taking that half hour break at an appropriate time of day, then I don't see a lawsuit as being justified unless there's legislation from the past 12 years (very plausible) that renders this precedent obsolete.

daedrdev 2y ago
I'm sure what I said about 5 hours is mostly accurate, the specific rule in California labor law mentions the 5 hour requirement. > In compliance with California labor laws, nonexempt employees are entitled to an unpaid meal or lunch break lasting a minimum of 30 minutes for shifts exceeding five hours. This break, which should commence before the completion of the fifth hour of work, can be waived only if the workday does not surpass six hours. This means Employees are basically required to take the meal break before 5 hours, because a more forgiving policy of take it whenever you want will incur a PAGA lawsuit that will be settled due to the extreme potential fines.
- vitus 2y ago
  > the specific rule in California labor law mentions the 5 hour requirement. You're not wrong here. > This means Employees are basically required to take the meal break before 5 hours I don't think this characterization is supported, though. For one, the law only applies to non-exempt (usually: non-salaried) employees, and for another, case law (typically citing Brinker) consistently holds that the employer is not required to enforce that the employee takes the full meal break at the appropriate time, merely that the employer provide opportunity to do so. The actual opinion from Brinker states: > Specifically, we conclude that (1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; (2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; (3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; (4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and (5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so. https://casetext.com/case/brinker-restaurant-corp-v-superior-court https://casetext.com/case/brinker-restaurant-corp-v-superior... One interesting application in case law that I found is that apparently being on-call during a meal break is sufficient to result in a violation. https://casetext.com/analysis/california-supreme-court-no-on-duty-on-call-rest-breaks https://casetext.com/analysis/california-supreme-court-no-on...

ryandrake 2y ago

A business employing 100 people should have at least a General Counsel, if not multiple lawyers who can advise them such that they structure their break schedule to not violate state law. That's literally the purpose of having in-house legal counsel. Heck, a business employing 2 people should have a legal advisor. If I were starting a startup with my own money, a lawyer would be employee number one.

nickff 2y ago
Lawyers don't know all the (state or federal) laws, they do not pretend to be able to assess all your legal risks, just some of the most likely ones.
elevatedastalt 2y ago
Are you even for real right now? You expect a company of 100 people to have multiple lawyers on payroll pouring over labor statutes? There exists companies outside the frenzied world of VC-funded startups.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  What serious company does not have a single lawyer to consult with?