About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


35 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 175 (2005)
To Be or Not to Be a Penalty: Defining the Recovery under California's Meal and Rest Period Provisions

handle is hein.journals/ggulr35 and id is 203 raw text is: COMMENT TO BE OR NOT TO BE A PENALTY: DEFINING THE RECOVERY UNDER CALIFORNIA'S MEAL AND REST PERIOD PROVISIONS SCOTT EDWARD COLE AND MAITHEW R. BAINER* INTRODUCTION It's 3:45 p.m. on a Thursday and Employee 5301's eyelids are getting heavy.' Employee 5301, a company-employed secu- rity officer, has been at his post, without a break, for nearly seven hours now. The lunch that he quickly consumed around noon is starting to induce slumber, more than encouraging careful attention to protecting the assets of the mega- corporation that employs him. Pursuant to his employer's stated policies, Employee 5301 is only entitled to an on-duty meal period, meaning that he is forced to eat while manning his post. He is not permitted to make phone calls and the du- ration of his absence from his station is closely monitored if he uses the restroom, which he tries to avoid as much as possible. Beyond this, he is not permitted to leave his post for any per- * Scott Cole & Associates, APC represents individuals in employment (wage & hour) class action litigation. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. is a graduate of the University of San Francisco School of Law and a member of the California State Bar and its Labor and Employment Law Section. Matthew R. Bainer, Esq., an associate with Scott Cole & Associates, APC, is also a graduate of the University of San Francisco School of Law and a member of the California State Bar and its Labor and Employment Law Section. 'Employee 5301 here used as an anonymous pseudonym.