{"id":391,"date":"2012-04-13T11:37:23","date_gmt":"2012-04-13T15:37:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/?p=391"},"modified":"2020-07-28T11:26:50","modified_gmt":"2020-07-28T15:26:50","slug":"2012-04-13-california-workers-given-a-break-or-two","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/2012-04-13-california-workers-given-a-break-or-two\/","title":{"rendered":"California Workers Given a Break or Two"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Can almost taste it<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The California State Supreme Court issued a decision today to define employers’ obligations concerning their employees’ mealtime<\/a>. \u00a0Some confusion was inherent in California’s meal break laws, which state that employers must give employees a 30-minute meal break per every 10-hour-or-fewer shift. \u00a0Employers weren’t sure, however, whether employees must abstain from all work during the 30-minutes and whether it was the employers’ problem to ensure that they do. \u00a0Today’s ruling makes it clear: employers must provide employees with the ability to take a 30-minute lunch break, but if an employee decides to work straight through anyway, well, that’s their prerogative.<\/p>\n

So, employers are let off the hook and employees must be the ones to make sure they don’t overwork themselves. \u00a0The pressure to meet deadlines and maximize performance won’t influence low-level employees’ “decisions” to skip lunch at all. \u00a0Sounds like a step in the right direction. \u00a0Full disclosure: I usually eat lunch and do a little work at my desk, so I might be biased. \u00a0The whipping is a little much, but motivation is motivation!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The California State Supreme Court issued a decision today to define employers’ obligations concerning their employees’ mealtime. \u00a0Some confusion was inherent in California’s meal break laws, which state that employers…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[342,16,277,344,203,341,345,343,346],"class_list":["post-391","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-settlements","tag-breaks","tag-california","tag-employees","tag-employers","tag-employment","tag-meal-breaks","tag-meals","tag-san-diego","tag-shifts"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=391"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9679,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391\/revisions\/9679"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lawyer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}