(June 23, 2008) The California Chamber of Commerce is continuing to urge lawmakers to insist on a comprehensive solution to the meal period litigation crisis.

The CalChamber is receiving frequent calls from members who are involved in a meal period lawsuit or who have a client who is being sued. The calls originate from a variety of industries and locations.

Comprehensive Solution

Despite claims to the contrary, the CalChamber believes there is a comprehensive solution that would provide a remedy across all industries, all job classifications and all employers — both union and non-union.

The comprehensive solution was contained in the language of CalChamber-sponsored SB 1539 (R. Calderon; D-Montebello) as introduced on February 22.

At an April 9 hearing, the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee amended SB 1539 to declare the Legislature’s intent to clarify the meal period law, then passed the bill by a unanimous vote to provide an opportunity for ongoing discussions to craft a solution to current issues with the law.

On April 21, SB 1539 was referred to the Senate Rules Committee, where it subsequently died for missing the end-of-May deadline to pass its house of origin.

Changes Needed

The CalChamber is calling for a solution that will provide both employers and employees with the clarity and flexibility needed to comply with the meal period statute, Labor Code Section 512.

Current law is confusing and has led to costly litigation against California businesses. Historically, state enforcement officials have interpreted the statute and related regulations narrowly and unreasonably, wrongly increasing employer liability.

To avoid liability under these interpretations, employers have had to discipline or discharge employees for not taking meal periods as directed, and to police employees to make sure they are taking the meal period according to the rules.

Although several recent federal court decisions have rejected those narrow and unreasonable interpretations, the California Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling that resolves the issue. Both employers and employees seek flexibility and clarity now.

A comprehensive solution must:l clarify that an employer’s obligation to “provide” a meal period means that employees have a meaningful opportunity to take meal periods, but that employers do not have to police their workforces to ensure employees take the meal periods.

l clarify appropriate situations that allow an employee and employer to enter into on-duty meal period agreements; and l permit employers and labor to collectively bargain on and set their own meal period rules.

Action Needed

Contact your legislative representatives and urge them to make it a priority to resolve the meal periods dilemma this year.

Staff Contact: Marti Fisher

Additional Materials

Labor and Employment