California Supreme Court Interprets Labor Law Day of Rest Requirements

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to resolve questions based on the construction of California’s day of rest statutes. These statutes, found in the California Labor Code, prohibit an employer from “caus[ing] its employees to work more than six days in seven,” but do not apply “when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof.”

The Ninth Circuit sought clarity on the following issues:

1. Is the day of rest calculated by the workweek, or does it apply on a rolling basis to any seven-consecutive-day period?
2. Does the exemption for workers employed six hours or less per day apply so long as an employee works six hours or less on at least one day of the applicable week, or does it apply only when an employee works no more than six hours on each and every day of the week?
3. What does it mean for an employer to “cause an employee to go without a day of rest”: force, coerce, pressure, schedule, encourage, reward, permit, or something else?

The California Supreme Court chose to respond and held:

1. A day of rest is guaranteed for each workweek. Periods of more than six consecutive days of work that stretch across more than one workweek are not per se prohibited.
2. The exemption for employees working shifts of six hours or less applies only to those who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the workweek. If on any one day an employee works more than six hours, a day of rest must be provided during that workweek, subject to whatever other exceptions might apply.
3. An employer causes its employee to go without a day of rest when it induces the employee to forgo rest to which he or she is entitled. An employer is not, however, forbidden from permitting or allowing an employee, fully apprised of the entitlement to rest, independently to choose not to take a day of rest.

We expect this interpretation will result in additional questions and issues, such as what happens if in two consecutive weeks the six day rule is violate? What constitutes inducement? What is the standard? Is it conduct that would likely induce a reasonable employee to forgo a day of rest or is it that the employee must have actually been induced to forgo the day of rest?

If you run into scheduling issues with employees where an employee may not be able to receive at least a day off in a week, consult your legal counsel. It is better to give wide latitude to these interpretations than to receive service of a wrongful labor practices complaint.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.