Skip to main content
The California Supreme Court held that aggrieved employees are not entitled to recover their attorney’s fees in lawsuits to obtain pay for missed meal and rest breaks. The Court also banned employers from recovering attorney’s fees when they successfully defend such cases.
Summary of Decision
In the second major decision addressing meal and rest breaks in a few weeks, the California Supreme Court held in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827 (Cal. Apr. 30, 2012), that employees and employers are not entitled to recover their attorney’s fees if they prevail in a lawsuit for meal or rest break payments under Labor Code section 226.7. In a careful statutory analysis of two Labor Code sections that provide for recovery of attorney’s fees in actions for unpaid wages and overtime (218.5 and 1194), the Court held that they were never intended to allow for recovery of attorney’s fees when a party prevails on a meal or rest break claim under section 226.7. Instead, section 226.7 is aimed at ensuring the health and welfare of employees by requiring that employers provide meal and rest breaks, not to protect or provide employees with wages.
Practical Implications for Employers
The explosion of class action meal and rest break lawsuits in recent years has required companies to shift resources from growing their businesses to defending and settling lawsuits, even when they are substantially complying with the law. A large motivation for settling such cases has been the risk of having to pay attorney’s fees to plaintiff’s lawyers, which often exceed the recovery provided to the class. While there are other avenues in the Labor Code where prevailing employees can recover attorney’s fees for different types of claims, the Kirby decision should dampen the enthusiasm of employees and their lawyers to bring class action meal and rest break lawsuits.