California Employment Law Blog

Are Meal and Rest Break Premiums "Wages"?

Posted by Timothy B. Del Castillo | Jan 02, 2018 | 0 Comments

view of workers at cafeteria

Last week, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified three questions to the California Supreme Court.  For those not familiar with the certification procedure, when a federal court "certifies" a question to the state Supreme Court is it asking the Court to clarify a point of state law that is important to the case, but has not yet been ruled on by the state Supreme Court.  Certified questions provide a unique opportunity to get clarity on issues of law from the horse's mouth, so to speak.  

Two of the questions certified pertain specifically to employers of ambulance attendants working 24-hour shifts, and so are not applicable to employers broadly.  But the third question certified will apply to all employers if the California Supreme Court answers it.  As most employers know, if a compliant meal or rest period is not provided to an employee, the employer must pay an additional hour's worth of pay as a "penalty" or "premium."  

Are these "premiums" considered "wages" for purposes of other Labor Code provisions?  That is the question certified to the Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit.  Prior decisions of the Supreme Court have given apparently conflicting answers.  As explained by the Ninth Circuit's certification order: "In Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 155 P.3d 284, 297 (Cal. 2007), the Court characterized the extra hours paid for meal period violations as a 'premium wage' rather than a penalty, but, in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 274 P.3d 1160, 1167–68 (Cal. 2012), the Court held that a meal-period violation is not tied to the nonpayment of wages."  

The answer to this question is important because Labor Code section 203 imposes waiting-time penalties only for late payment of final "wages" (not, for example, for expense reimbursements).  Similarly, Labor Code section 226 requires accurate reporting of an employee's "wages," which would include missed meal and rest break premiums if they are held to be "wages."  

Employment litigators and employers should follow the resolution of these certified questions because they could have an impact on litigation and payroll practices.  

About the Author

Timothy B. Del Castillo

Tim practices employment law in California and represents both employees and employers in federal and state courts, administrative hearings, arbitrations, mediations, and in direct negotiations. Tim also offers advice and counsel and training to businesses to help them achieve compliance with California employment laws.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment


Castle Law’s goal is to become your trusted advisor and to provide real value for all of your employment law needs. To become our client’s trusted advisors, we aim to provide quality representation and sound advice time and again.


There is no charge for the initial phone consultation. Fill out the contact form on the website with detailed information about your circumstances and we will schedule a telephone appointment.

Copyright © 2020 Castle Law: California Employment Counsel

Attorney Timothy B. Del Castillo is responsible for the content on this website, which may contain an advertisement. The information on this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship and no attorney-client relationship is formed until conflicts have been cleared and both parties have signed a written fee agreement. Please do not send any confidential information through the website. The materials and information on this website are for informational purposes only and should not be relied on as legal advice. PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE OUTCOMES. Any testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.