(a)As used in this section, “recovery period” means a cooldown period afforded an employee to prevent heat illness.
(b)An employer shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
(c)If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with a state law, including, but not limited to, an applicable statute or applicable
regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.
(d)A rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to a state law, including, but not limited to, an applicable statute, or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, shall be counted as hours worked, for which there shall be no deduction from wages. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law.
(e)This section shall not apply to an employee who is exempt from meal or rest or recovery period requirements pursuant to other state laws, including, but not limited to, a statute or
regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.
(f)(1)An employee employed in the security services industry as a security officer who is registered pursuant to the Private Security Services Act (Chapter 11.5 (commencing with Section 7580) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) and who is employed by a private patrol operator registered pursuant to that chapter, may be required to remain on the premises during rest periods and to remain on call, and carry and monitor a communication device during rest periods. If a security officer’s rest period is interrupted, the security officer shall be permitted to restart the rest period anew as soon as practicable. The security officer’s employer satisfies that rest period obligation if the security officer is then able to take
an uninterrupted rest period. If on any workday a security officer is not permitted to take an uninterrupted rest period of at least 10 minutes for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, then the security officer shall be paid one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular base hourly rate of compensation.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, the term “interrupted” means any time a security officer is called upon to return to performing the active duties of the security officer’s post prior to completing the rest period, and does not include simply being on the premises, remaining on call and alert, monitoring a radio or other communication device, or all of these actions.
(3)This subdivision only applies to an employee specified in paragraph (1) if both of
the following conditions are satisfied:
(A)The employee is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement.
(B)The valid collective bargaining agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees, and expressly provides for rest periods for those employees, final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its rest period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and a regular hourly rate of pay of not less than one dollar more than the state minimum wage rate.
(4)This subdivision does not apply to existing cases filed before January 1, 2021.
(5)In enacting the legislation
adding this subdivision, it is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate, for the security services industry only, the California Supreme Court’s decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, to the extent that decision is in conflict with this subdivision.
(g)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2027, and as of that date is repealed.
Notes of Decisions
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 12× “Specifically, Plaintiffs claim Wal-Mart violated: (1) Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 for failure to pay adequate compensation for missed meal breaks; (2) Cal.”
Mickey Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 8× “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs Mickey Lee Dilts, Ray Rios, and Donny Dushaj brought this class action against Defendants, which are motor carriers, alleging that Defendants routinely violate California’s meal and rest break laws, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 , 512; Cal.…”
Cleveland v. Groceryworks.com, LLC, 200 F. Supp. 3d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 7× “Groceryworks moves for summary judgment on the following claims: Claim 1, that Groceryworks failed to compensate Cleveland for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code sections 200, 226, 500, 510, 1197, and 1198; Claim 2, that Groceryworks failed to provide…”
Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., 385 P.3d 823 (Cal. 2016).
· cites it 3× “(Lab. Code, § 226.7, subds. (b) & (c).) Neither of these provisions specifies what a rest period must consist of, other than that it must be what it sounds like: that is, a period during which the employee is not required "to work.”
White v. Starbucks Corp., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
· cites it 6× “White asserts four claims: (1) unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal Labor Code §§ 201-204 and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No 7 (“off-the-clock claim”) 1 ; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of Cal Labor Code §§…”
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012).
· cites it 2× “) [1] Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (a) [2] prohibits an employer from requiring an employee "to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.”
Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equip. Co., 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 649 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
· cites it 3× “Code, §§ 204, 510, 1194, 1198 ), meal periods ( Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 512 ) and rest breaks ( Lab.”
Avilez v. Pinkerton Gov't Servs., 286 F.R.D. 450 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiff seeks class certification for violation of the following California laws: (1) Failure to provide off-duty meal breaks in violation of California Labor Code § 226.7; (2) Failure to keep accurate records in violation of California Labor Code § 226; (3) a derivative claim…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 226.7(a) — 12 cases
White v. Starbucks Corp., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
“White asserts four claims: (1) unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal Labor Code §§ 201-204 and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No 7 (“off-the-clock claim”) 1 ; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of Cal Labor Code §§…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 226.7(b) — 18 cases
Avilez v. Pinkerton Gov't Servs., 286 F.R.D. 450 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
“Plaintiff seeks class certification for violation of the following California laws: (1) Failure to provide off-duty meal breaks in violation of California Labor Code § 226.7; (2) Failure to keep accurate records in violation of California Labor Code § 226; (3) a derivative claim…”
Mickey Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014).
“FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs Mickey Lee Dilts, Ray Rios, and Donny Dushaj brought this class action against Defendants, which are motor carriers, alleging that Defendants routinely violate California’s meal and rest break laws, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 , 512; Cal.…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 226.7(c) — 15 cases
Mickey Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014).
“FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs Mickey Lee Dilts, Ray Rios, and Donny Dushaj brought this class action against Defendants, which are motor carriers, alleging that Defendants routinely violate California’s meal and rest break laws, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 , 512; Cal.…”
Cleveland v. Groceryworks.com, LLC, 200 F. Supp. 3d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
“Groceryworks moves for summary judgment on the following claims: Claim 1, that Groceryworks failed to compensate Cleveland for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code sections 200, 226, 500, 510, 1197, and 1198; Claim 2, that Groceryworks failed to provide…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 226.7(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.