Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

AD-ttorneys Law Blog

Graphic image with Transparency, Requirements, Law, Audit, Regulations, Terms, and Compliance written in hexagon shaped boxes

Cloudy with a Chance of AI: Navigating the FTC’s Regulatory Forecast

Data Counsel

Examining the Likely Impact of Washington’s My Health, My Data Act on Class Action Litigation Involving Biometric Data

The Bargaining Table

Practical Impacts of the ‘Cemex’ Decision

Carl Hittinger, Jeffry Liskov Author Legal Intelligencer Article on Antitrust Considerations in Executive Order on AI

California’s Supreme Court issued an opinion today that will likely further increase employers’ risk of class action lawsuits arising out of meal periods. The court made two significant holdings:  <ol> 	<li>While employers are generally permitted to neutrally round an employee’s time punches at the start and end of an employee’s shift, employers are not permitted to round an employee’s time punches for meal periods.</li> 	<li>If an employee’s time punch records reflect that an employee took a short or late meal period, those time punch records are presumptive evidence at the class certification and summary judgment stage of a meal period violation, entitling the employee to one hour of premium pay for the violation.</li> </ol>  The Court’s decision, Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, Cal. Supreme Court Case No. S253677, can be viewed <a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S253677.PDF">here</a>.  Many employers use rounding as part of their regular time-keeping practices, and this opinion does not seem to affect that practice for purposes of beginning and ending the workday. It does, however, eliminate that ability for meal periods, largely defeating the use of rounding practices. Employers with California employees should examine their practices immediately, and, if they are using rounding for meal periods, they should stop doing so.  Although California employers are not required, under existing law, to ensure that employees affirmatively take the compliant meal periods provided to them, California employers should enforce their meal period requirements in an effort to minimize the impact of a rebuttable presumption.  California law has many traps for unwary employers. This most recent decision is a reminder for employers of both the need to remain vigilant in this area and to expect continued expensive class litigation.  Authorship Credit: Joe Persoff and Vartan Madoyan

core/freeform

Employment/Wage and Hour Class Actions

Labor and Employment

Wage and Hour Compliance

COVID-19 Compliance

California Labor and Employment

California Supreme Court: Employee Time Punches Are Presumptive Evidence of Meal Period Compliance

Related Services

Featured Insights