An extra hour of pay by any other name is still an extra hour of pay.
But if that payment is made because an employer failed to give meal and rest breaks, should it be considered compensation for the employee or punishment for the company?
If an employer gives an extra hour of pay for failure to provide a meal or rest break, is the pay a penalty for the company or compensation for the worker? The California Supreme Court grappled with that question during Wednesday oral arguments, and indications are the vote will be close. The highly anticipated ruling will decide the statute of limitations for claims under Labor Code �226.7; employees will have three years to file a claim if the extra hour is compensation -- or one year if it's a penalty.
March 08, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
An extra hour of pay by any other name is still an extra hour of pay.
But if that payment is made because an employer failed to give meal and rest breaks, should it be considered compensation for the employee or punishment for the company?
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS