ARTICLE
22 July 2021

California Supreme Court Complicates Break Premium Calculations – Base Rate Of Pay Not Enough

WT
Winston Taylor

Contributor

Whether you're leading the way, disrupting an industry, entering a new phase of growth, or launching a defining product—we're in the room with you. In the action. Sleeves rolled up.

With a rich history spanning both sides of the Atlantic, we are present in the major commercial centers that matter to our clients: the U.S., the U.K., Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Combining scale with the speed clients demand, our defining capabilities include major litigation, critical transactions, strategic IP, and private wealth.

Our team of over 1,400 lawyers works hand-in-hand across markets, sectors, practice areas, and client teams. All-in problem solvers, we bring the creativity to think differently, and the pragmatism to get things done when it counts the most.

Embedded in your business and sharing your ambition, we take the work personally. Shaping what we do and how we do it around your goals and needs, always one step ahead of the moment.

On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, leaving California employers disappointed.
United States California Employment and HR

On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, leaving California employers disappointed. The Court was faced with the following question: Must employers pay out premiums for non-compliant meal and rest breaks (required by Labor Code section 226.7) at employees' “regular rate of pay” or at their “base hourly rate”?

The Court concluded that meal and rest break premiums must be paid at the same Fair Labor Standards Act “regular rate” that is currently used to calculate overtime premiums, rather than the “base hourly rate.” In other words, employers must pay California meal and rest break premium payments not at an employee's base hourly rate alone, but they must also factor in all non-discretionary payments (e.g., bonuses, shift premiums, incentive payments, and commissions) made to an employee in the pay periods in which the employee did not receive a compliant break.

Importantly, the Court's decision applies retroactively. This is problematic for the many California employers who have been paying meal and rest break premiums at an employee's base hourly rate.

In light of this decision, California employers are encouraged to contact legal counsel to take immediate measures to ensure compliance with this new interpretation and evaluate how to address its retroactive effects. A starting point is to ensure that going forward, payroll systems calculate and pay the meal and rest break premiums at the “regular rate.”

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More