Legal Opinion
Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc.
California Supreme Court
Decided May 8, 2017No. S224611PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWerdegar, J.
*1077 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked this court to resolve unsettled questions concerning the construction of the state's day *1078 of rest statutes, Labor Code sections 550 -558.1. ( Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. (9th Cir. 2015) 778 F.3d 834 ; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548.) These statutes prohibit an employer from "caus[ing] his employees to work more than six days in seven" (§ 552), but do not apply "when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof" (§ 556).
The Ninth Circuit asks:
1. Is the day of rest required by sections 551…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Arias v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Martinez v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Aaron Senne v. Kansas City Royals BaseballCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
- People v. PenningtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equip. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Atempa v. Pedrazzani, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.