Wage Law

Ugh, let's at least be intellectually honest about this. I get the point that the opinion's holdings as they pertain to the class action as a tool in wage claims generally deserve scrutiny. Heck, I agree with your earlier posting where those aspects of the opinion are concerned.

But, when it comes to the meat of the opinion - the substance of the "provide" vs. "ensure" requirement when it comes to meal and rest periods, which is what the Governor's statement addresses, although the Governor is correct to say that there was conflict, the conflict was between DLSE opinion letters with no support in either text or legislative history and the analysis used by the Court. Why lobby the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict which doesn't exist? Why not push the Legislature or IWC to hold hearings and actually generate a, gasp, clear rule which everyone can then follow? Or put another way, on the provide vs. ensure requirement, is there not uniformity of decision now?

I appreciate the response. And it's a good point, CAFA has some ugly consequences I guess. But to my main point, it's better for the Supreme Court to take a case to straighten out those pesky federal courts than to push the Legislature or IWC to actually lift a finger? Unlike the Sav-On issues raised, where I agree with you completely, the provide/ensure dispute could be settled in a sentence. No, let's spend the typically lengthy multi-year period for Supreme Court review instead. And let's let tons of these claims sit in limbo until then.

And what's the conflict? Was the court incorrect to say that Perez didn't reach the same issue as Brinker and instead centered around whether there was a dispute of fact over whether the employer even provided the breaks under even what is now the Brinker standard? And if it was right, is there another federal case in conflict? The other two I know about aren't. And it will take a gutsy federal judge to say "I know there is only one State case directly on point but I think the California Supreme Court would decide differently and by so deciding, I'll leave the litigants before me with almost no chance to gain meaningful review of that decision." I'm sure it's happened but I'd be more swayed by the conflict argument if it happens going forward.

Still, at bottom, I just think it's crazy that this dispute can continue on and on like this - isn't this what the IWC is for?

Timecards would never reflect whether the breaks were offered, altered or not. Only whether they were taken.

I'm not trying to carry the water for either side. The appeal of the anti-Brinker position is this - it's easy, just look at the timecards. If they reflect the break, you're golden, if not, you're in trouble. The appeal of Brinker is that a lot of employees like flexibility and hate filling in their timecards with down-to-the-minute precision for fear of being fired (which I am reading anecdotal reports of happening, maybe anecdotal is really apocryphal). Inquiry instead into whether employer can prove that it/he/she has a policy of providing breaks and that it's not a sham.

Now he's trying to cut all the state workers to minimum wage. Maybe he hates working people, because he thinks they are stupid for watching all his movies, and because they don't contribute to his campaign.

Now he's trying to cut all the state workers to minimum wage. Maybe he hates working people, because he thinks they are stupid for watching all his movies, and because they don't contribute to his campaign.

"Moreover, plaintiffs' interpretation of section 512(a) is inconsistent with the language allowing employees to waive their meal breaks for shifts of less than five hours."

I really don't understand what the Brinker court is even trying to say here. I fear that the court is laboring under layers of confusion. But let's start with the top layer: Does anybody know what language says that an E may waive the MP if the shift is less than 5 hours? Because that's certainly not what I read in, say, LC 512(a). LC 512(a) says that the E does not even get a MP to waive in that situation.