A Case for Unpaid Meal Breaks

Fresno, CAFor almost three years, Margaret was required to work during her lunch breaks. She worked eight hours a day, five days a week, and was not allowed to leave the office in case the phones rang. It wasn't until she was terminated that Margaret filed a complaint with the California Labor Board and learned that her employers had violated California labor law.

"I worked at the business office of a domestic violence non-profit agency," says Margaret. "During my time there, I only had about six occasions where I left the office. My job description required that I answer the phones at all times. I had the possibility of a break but that was subject to availability—no one was ever available.

"My boss was a chilling sort of woman who was not approachable; I never confronted her because it was 'shut up and do your job.' I was the go-to person if something happened, no matter what time of the day. The phones were forwarded to the lunch room every day and I would continue with my reception duties in the lunch room. I got to eat lunch with my co-workers, but I was the only employee required to answer the phones or meet and greet visitors.

"I simply accepted this as the terms of my position. But in October 2008 I was fired because I lost a check. It was my duty to do a spreadsheet of all incoming donations, grant checks and various monies that were a weekly deposit to the agency. One check went missing and I claimed responsibility because it happened on my watch. I was terminated and consequently denied unemployment compensation.

"At that point I requested a hearing with the California Labor Board. Three directors from the agency showed up to refute my request, but I was granted unemployment compensation. I got my first check in February 2009, including some retroactive checks." (Margaret got a new job in August 2009.)

Margaret then filed a complaint with the California Labor Board to request compensation for 300 missed meal breaks. The Labor Commissioner reviewed her complaint and determined that she has a case. Margaret is now waiting for a hearing date, which will likely be early next year.

"The agency has been notified of my claim every step of the way but they have a large band of attorneys," says Margaret. "When I went to the first hearing, they brought in three attorneys and I was by myself—I was very intimidated and this was clearly their goal.

"I think it would help my case if I could have a lawyer at this hearing. It falls on my shoulders to prove my case because I am the moving party and I must convince the hearing judge that I am entitled to compensation for lost meal breaks. I estimate they owe me about $9,000.

"There are other about 75 employees at the agency and more than a handful that had similar circumstances, but I only know one person willing to go forward. Because the agency does good work regarding domestic violence, they may be perceived as the good guys and I am the bad guy. But the agency violated the California labor code. It would be good to have legal representation but I will go it alone if I have to."

California labor law stipulates: "If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided" (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, §11040).

The statute of limitations will not be an issue for Margaret. In the landmark labor law decision Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that payments made for violations of meal breaks are considered "wages" and are subject to the 3 year statute of limitations for wages. The Murphy Court specifically held that meal premiums could go back for 3 years, but employees will very likely be able to go back a total of 4 years under unfair competition statutes.

Margaret will contact LawyersandSettlements after her hearing to report on the outcome.