Menu

California Supreme Court Puts to Rest Labor Code Interpretation

Corporate Law and Governance   |   Hospitality   |   Labor & Employment   |   May 9, 2017
Download   
Share Page

Like the Good Lord, California employees are guaranteed one day of rest every workweek under a new California Supreme Court decision, which will have broad implications for employers in California, especially those in the retail and food service industries.

In this week’s unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court analyzed a maze of state statutes so convoluted that the federal Ninth Circuit had to ask the California court to interpret. In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., S224611, 9th Cir. Nos. 12-57130/12-57144, the California Supreme Court clarified the confusion and gave California employers needed guidance:

  • Rest Day Guaranteed. The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that every California worker who works more than 30 hours in a workweek and at least six hours in any given workday is statutorily guaranteed at least one day of rest that workweek. Interpreting California Labor Code Sections 551 and 552, the California Supreme Court rejected employer Nordstrom’s contention that the statutes were to be read together. Instead, the court said in order to qualify for the guaranteed day of rest, any employee who works more than six hours in any given workday in a workweek or for a total of 30 hours in that workweek must be afforded a day of rest and cannot be required to work even part-time on all seven days.
  • Waiver. However, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that the employee can waive the seventh day of rest, so long as the employee is paid overtime and advised of his or her statutory rights guaranteeing a day off for rest.
  • “Workweek” definition. The workweek in California is seven days but need not necessarily run Monday through Sunday. It can run from a Thursday to the following Wednesday or a Tuesday through the following Monday. However once the workweek is set, the employer cannot vary it, but must follow a set pattern. Nevertheless, this provides greater flexibility for employers so long as they act consistently.  
  • Not every California employee is entitled to a day of rest. Part-time employees who work both less than 30 hours in a workweek and less than six hours in any given work day that week are exempted from this guarantee. Thus, employers can adjust work schedules to provide greater flexibility for part-time employees.

A copy of the decision, Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., S224611, 9th Cir. Nos. 12-57130/12-57144, is attached to this alert. Should you have any questions regarding the impact of Sections 551 and 552 and the court’s decision, please contact us.


©2019 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.