New Case Law: Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection

Attorney case law update – Kirby v. Immos Fire Protection, Inc., (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1244. Branigan Robertson is a California employment lawyer who focuses his practice on wage and hour issues, sexual harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. All callers receive a free consultation.

In this case, former employees sued defendant employer for wage and hour violations, including failure to provide rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7. The defendants moved to recover attorney’s fees and plaintiffs opposed claiming that recovery was barred under sections 1194 and 218.5. The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to defendant and plaintiff appealed.

Supreme Court Reversal – Wage Attorney

The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the one way fee-shifting statute under section 1194 for unpaid minimum wage and overtime claims, and the two-way fee shifting statute under section 218.5 for actions for nonpayment of wages, do not apply to meal and rest break claims. Basically, employers sued under Labor Code section 226.7 for failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks cannot recover attorney’s fees under 1194 or 218.5 because meal period and rest break premiums do not constitute wages under the statute.

If you are looking for an attorney to handle your meal and rest break issue, contact our lawyers today. Mr. Robertson is a California employment lawyer who focuses his practice on wage and hour issues, sexual harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Call for a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Wage & Hour

Comments are closed.