SAN FRANCISCO —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Though the case, Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc., involves state labor code violations by a national retail store chain, a Supreme Court ruling on the issue would apply to all employers in the state, including those in the restaurant industry, which has been hit particularly hard by class-action litigation over wage-and-hour infractions. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
The state’s highest court has been asked to clarify the statute of limitations on meal and rest break violations—essentially whether employers could be held liable for violations going back either for one year or for up to four years. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
For large restaurant chains, the difference could mean millions of dollars in damages or settlement costs in such cases, which can involve thousands of employees. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Last month, for example, class-action status was granted in a lawsuit potentially involving 900 former workers for a Papa John’s Pizza franchisee in Los Angeles County. A case in San Diego involving as many as 63,000 employees also is pending against Dallas-based Brinker International, and another pending action against the Emeryville, Calif.-based Chevys Fresh Mex chain is based on the claims of about 5,000 workers who say they were denied meal and rest breaks. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Restaurant operators who have been sued declined to comment because of pending litigation. But attorneys on both sides say the Supreme Court’s action on the Murphy v. Kenneth Cole case could either slow the flood of class-action complaints substantially or spark a flurry of new lawsuits. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
“The ruling won’t relieve restaurant operators of their obligations, but a ruling in the employers’ favor would bring some relief for restaurant operators in terms of liability,” said Anthony Zaller, an attorney with Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger in Los Angeles who has defended restaurant companies in such cases. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
A ruling in favor of employers, however, could “stem these types of lawsuits,” he added. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Attorneys say there’s no way to estimate how many restaurant companies have been targeted in California, which is considered ground zero for wage-and-hour lawsuits because of the state’s complicated labor laws. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Zaller estimated that hundreds of operators have been sued in the past year for meal and rest break violations in particular. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
“There isn’t an industry in the state that hasn’t been affected by wage-and-hour class actions,” he said. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
The state Supreme Court’s decision is likely to bring to rest a debate over the statute of limitations that has been going on in courts across California for several years. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are scheduled for March 7, and a written ruling typically would follow within 90 days. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
At issue is how the state classifies the payments employers must make when they fail to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
The state labor code requires the payment of one hour of additional pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each day there is a violation. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
If the Supreme Court rules that those payments are considered a “wage,” as attorneys representing the plaintiff contend, the statute of limitations would extend for four years from the infraction date. That means an operator sued for not adequately providing meal and rest breaks this year could be liable for violations going back to 2003. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
However, attorneys representing employers contend the payment for violations should be considered a “penalty,” which would have a statute of limitations of one year. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
A ruling in favor of the penalty classification also could prevent the collection of attorney fees, interest and late-wage-payment penalties, which can add thousands—if not millions—to the cost of such lawsuits. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
“Potential liability statewide among restaurants and other industries in general is staggering because of how it can build up,” said Steve Drapkin, an attorney who filed a brief in support of the “penalty” classification on behalf of the California Restaurant Association. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
So far, most lower courts have ruled that the payment is a penalty with a one-year statute of limitations, but a minority of opinions have ruled the other way, said Robert W. Tollen, an attorney representing Kenneth Cole in the case before the state Supreme Court. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
“This will resolve it one way or the other,” he said. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
The decision is likely to have the greatest impact on cases in which employers have classified workers as managers or assistant managers, and thus exempt from meal and rest break requirements. If such an employer is sued, and the employee is found to meet the criteria for nonexemption, he said, “the big bite” will be whether they can collect penalties for violations going back one year or four years. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
The pending ruling has already had an impact. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Drapkin, for example, said a case he is defending involving a prominent restaurant company charged with meal and rest break violations has been “put on ice” pending the Supreme Court’s decision. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Lawrence Gartner, an attorney representing Papa John’s franchisee PJ United, based in Birmingham, Ala., also is waiting to see how the ruling will impact his case. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
In the class action involving PJ United, which once operated 14 Papa John’s units in the Los Angeles area, plaintiffs contend the franchisee misclassified workers as “store managers” to circumvent meal and rest break requirements. In addition, the suit alleges that delivery drivers and other nonexempt employees were denied breaks. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
The Supreme Court ruling would essentially decide whether his client is facing “four times the potential liability or one quarter the potential liability,” Gartner said. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Lawyers on both sides agree that a move toward the one-year statute of limitations could result in fewer lawsuits being filed. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
“This could have huge ramifications,” said Eric Kingsley, a plaintiff attorney whose firm, Kingsley & Kingsley, boasts the collection of $17 million in settlements from restaurant companies alone. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Holding the statute of limitations to one year would make it “increasingly difficult to litigate a case that is substandard, or less than $200,000,” Kingsley said. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
However, if the court rules in favor of the four-year statute of limitations, “you’ll probably see a flurry of new activity,” he said. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Meal and rest breaks are typically only one component of wage-and-hour lawsuits, he noted. The state Supreme Court ruling would not impact the statute of limitations on penalties for inadequate payment of overtime, pay stub reporting, tip pooling and other potential labor code violations. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Kingsley said such complaints have dropped, however, in part because employers in California are doing a better job of following the rules. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
Restaurant consultant Greg McNally, who advises operators on such issues, noted that the shorter statute of limitations also could benefit restaurants simply because increased awareness of the issue has improved compliance over the past year. —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
“In 2004, there was little awareness,” and probably more violations, McNally said. “But if an operator in 2007 is not accurately recording and reporting meal and rest breaks, then shame on them.” —Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court here this week on a lawsuit that could limit the liability of employers—and potentially save them millions of dollars—if they are found to have violated meal and rest break requirements.
