San Francisco, CA employment attorney Traci M. Hinden talks about California’s meal and rest break laws. She explains that in California, employees are generally entitled to a 30-minute meal period for every five hours worked, and that the meal period must be uninterrupted. She clarifies that an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period means the employee must actually receive the full break, rather than spending part of it waiting in line to clock out or being called back to work by a bell or other workplace notification, because doing so would deprive the employee of the required break time.

She further explains that a meal period can be interrupted even when the employee is not physically called back to the workplace. For example, if a supervisor asks an employee a work-related question while the employee is on a meal break, or sends a text message expecting an immediate response, the meal period has been interrupted and may constitute a meal period violation. She notes that some employees believe an interruption occurs only when they are physically required to return to the floor, but any work-related interaction that interferes with the employee’s uninterrupted meal period can be problematic.

She also addresses situations in which employers require employees to sign meal period waivers. She explains that if an employee is forced to waive a meal period despite wanting to take the full 30-minute break, that can raise additional legal concerns because the meal period is intended to provide employees with time away from work to hydrate, drink water, take a walk, rest, or otherwise attend to their personal needs. She emphasizes that this is why the meal period is unpaid: employees are supposed to be relieved of their work duties and free to use that time as they choose.

She explains that for each meal period violation, an employer may be responsible for paying the employee one additional hour of pay when the meal period is interrupted, shortened, or not provided. She notes that employees who work more than 10 hours in a day are generally entitled to a second meal period. This issue can arise frequently among lower-wage workers who work 10- or 11-hour shifts.

She also discusses schedules commonly referred to as “4/10s,” in which employees work four days per week for 10 hours or more each day. She explains that if such a schedule has not been properly adopted or elected, additional legal issues may arise, and employees may still be entitled to their second meal period.

Turning to rest breaks, she explains that employees are generally entitled to a 10-minute, uninterrupted, duty-free rest period for every four hours worked, or a major fraction thereof. She notes that three and a half hours is generally considered a major fraction, meaning that an employee who works eight hours would typically be entitled to two rest periods, while someone working approximately 11 and a half hours could be entitled to three.

She emphasizes that rest breaks must also remain uninterrupted and duty-free. If an employer asks an employee a work-related question, requires the employee to return to work, cuts the break short, or combines the rest period with another break in a way that prevents the employee from receiving the required uninterrupted time, the employer may have committed a rest break violation. She explains that the employee may be owed one hour of pay for each violation.

She cautions, however, that California law currently limits an employer’s obligation to two meal or rest break premium payments per day. She gives the example of employees working 12-hour shifts who may receive only one meal period and no rest breaks, explaining that despite losing multiple breaks, they may not receive compensation for every individual violation because of this statutory limitation.

Finally, she points out an important distinction concerning attorney’s fees in meal and rest break claims. She explains that when these claims must be prosecuted, the resulting payment is no longer treated as a wage but rather as a penalty, which means employees may not recover attorney’s fees in the same manner as they would for a wage claim. As a result, if an employee hires an attorney to pursue the claim, the attorney may take a percentage of the amount recovered rather than having separate attorney’s fees paid by the employer.