The California Supreme Court wasted little time granting review of the controversial opinion in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. calling meal and rest period pay a penalty rather than a wage. The court's ruling was as follows:
Request for judicial notice granted. Petition for Review GRANTED. The parties are directed to brief and argue the following issues:
(1) Is a claim under Labor Code section 226.7 for the required payment of "one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation" for each day that an employer fails to provide mandatory meal or rest periods to an employee governed by the three-year statute of limitations for a claim for compensation (Code Civ. Proc., § 338) or the one-year statute of limitations for a claim for payment of a penalty (Code Civ. Proc., § 340)? [and]
(2) When an employee obtains an award on such a wage claim in an administrative proceeding and the employee seeks de novo review in superior court, can the employee pursue additional wage claims not presented in the administrative proceeding?
Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ
There is a very strong chance that the other recently published opinions in Mills and National Steel and Shipbuilding Company will be given a "grant and hold" review status if petitions for review are timely filed. To date, no petition has yet been filed in either case.
In other news, among the many cases for which review and granted or denied today was the opinion in Claudio v. UC Regents, in which the UC Board of Regents' petition for review was denied. Also denied was the petition for review filed by Harpreet S. Brar, the Orange County attorney recently jailed for filing frivolous lawsuits.