HOLDINGS: [1]-An employer failed to comply with

HOLDINGS: [1]-An employer failed to comply with Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4, subd. 11(A) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 11(A)) because there was no written agreement for on-duty meal periods expressly advising employees that they could revoke the agreement, nor could substantial compliance suffice; [2]-Because the statutory remedy provided by Lab. Code, § 226.7, was not a wage as defined in Lab. Code, § 200, the employer’s failure to pay it did not entitle the employees to seek derivative penalties under Lab. Code, §§ 203, 226, or attorney fees; [3]-The default rate for prejudgment interest under Civ. Code, § 3287, applied because the action was not one for nonpayment of wages, which made Lab. Code, § 218.6, inapplicable; [4]-Class certification under Code Civ. Proc., § 382, was warranted as to a Lab. Code, § 512, rest break claim because commonality was shown.

Nakase Law Firm explains intentional interference with contractual relations California

Outcome

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.