Legal Opinion

United Parcel Services, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 2, 2011No. B227190PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*60Opinion

BIGELOW, P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Labor Code section 226.7 requires an employer who fails to provide an employee with a meal or rest period to pay that employee one additional hour of pay (or premium payment) “for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.”1 The question before us is whether this statute authorizes one premium payment per workday regardless of the number or type of break periods that were not provided, or two premium payments per workday—one for failure to provide a meal period and another for failure to provide a rest period. We conclude section 226.7 permits…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  3. People v. ZapienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. In Re Marriage of BouquetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.California Supreme Court · 2000

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Levone Harris v. Km Industrial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  2. People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. Brown v. Janus of Santa CruzDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2021
  4. Camilo v. OzunaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
  5. Castillo v. Trinity Services Group, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2020

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API