The California Supreme Court granted review of Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions
The Court's granting of review was likely given the conflicting lower court holdings on whether Labor Code § 226.7 penalties for meal and rest break violations are subject to a three year or a one year statute of limitations. [Click here, or here to read prior posts on Murphy]
The California Supreme Court asked the parties to brief the following issues:
Request for judicial notice granted. Petition for Review GRANTED. The parties are directed to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is a claim under Labor Code section 226.7 for the required payment of 'one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation' for each day that an employer fails to provide mandatory meal or rest periods to an employee governed by the three-year statute of limitations for a claim for compensation (Code Civ. Proc., §338) or the one-year statute of limitations for a claim for payment of a penalty (Code Civ. Proc., §340)? (2) When an employee obtains an award on such a wage claim in administrative proceedings and the employer seeks de novo review in superior court, can the employee pursue additional wage claims not presented in the administrative proceedings?
Post A Comment / Question