By Michael Kun
Yesterday, only weeks after its long-awaited Brinker v. Superior Court decision, the California Supreme Court issued another important ruling on California meal and rest period laws.
In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that neither party may recover attorney’s fees on claims involving meal and rest periods. The Court analyzed the legislative history of the meal and rest period provisions and concluded, “We believe the most plausible inference to be drawn from history is that the Legislature intended [meal and rest period] claims to be governed by the default American rule that each side must cover its own attorney’s fees.”
Although plaintiffs’ counsel throughout the state have tried to put a happy face on this decision, claiming a victory because plaintiffs cannot be made to pay an employer’s attorney’s fees should the employer prevail, the decision is plainly a victory for employers. Rarely, if ever, are plaintiffs made to pay an employer’s attorney’s fees in a meal and rest period case, while employers are routinely asked to do as part of the resolution of such cases. And as employers who have faced meal and rest period class actions know, the resolution of those cases has often turned on disputes over plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees, where it has not been unusual for plaintiffs’ counsel to seek fees that dwarf the recovery they seek for the employees themselves.
While Kirby will have a great impact on meal and rest period cases, it is unlikely to spell the end of those cases. Instead, employers can expect that plaintiffs’ counsel will include claims for which attorney’s fees can be recovered, such as claims for unpaid overtime or claims under the Private Attorneys General Act, and that they will later contend that most of their time was devoted to those claims, not the meal and rest period claims.
Additionally, employers should be aware that the Supreme Court all but invited the state legislature to add an attorney’s fees provision for meal and rest period violations: “it is up to the Legislature to decide whether [minimum wage law’s] one-way fee-shifting provision should be broadened to include [meal and rest period] actions.”