Carrington v. Starbucks Corporation

Evidence that a worker accurately recorded her work time, that she was required to obtain approval from her supervisor prior to beginning her meal break and that she would begin her meal break when instructed was sufficient to support a finding that she did not receive meal breaks as required by law where the worker's records indicate she worked more five hours without taking a meal break and she did not receive a premium payment. Provision of a late meal period does not satisfy California's meal period requirements. An employee who brings a representative action under the Private Attorney General Act may seek penalties not only for the Labor Code violation that affected her, but also for different violations that affected other employees.

Carrington v. Starbucks Corporation - filed Nov. 27, 2018, publication ordered Dec. 19, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One 

Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 6102 

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/