Authors

Scott Edward Cole
Matthew R. Bainer

Article Title

To Be or Not To Be a Penalty: Defining the Recovery Under California's Meal and Rest Period Provisions

Abstract

This article argues that the DLSE's proposed regulations are in fact a redefinition of the pay provided for under Section 226.7. California Labor Code Section 226.7 was intended to, was explicitly drafted to, and in fact does, provide for a premium wage rather than a penalty. Parts I and II provide a review of mandatory meal and rest periods. Part III discusses the nature of the Section 226.7 pay provision, the DLSE's proposed regulations, and the DLSE's accompanying statement of reasons supporting these regulations. Parts IV analyzes Labor Code Section 226.7 under the axioms of statutory interpretation, demonstrating that the DLSE's proposed regulations are not a mere clarification, but instead a complete change in the classification of the premium pay provided for under this statute. Part V concludes the article with the authors' thoughts on the nature of these regulations, the intent behind their attempted promulgation, and the future of the meal and rest-break provisions.

Recommended Citation

Scott Edward Cole and Matthew R. Bainer, To Be or Not To Be a Penalty: Defining the Recovery Under California's Meal and Rest Period Provisions, 35 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (2005).
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol35/iss2/3