Legal Question in Employment Law in California

Required Meal Breaks

I am aware of the California Labor Law in regards to the required break. A 30 minute break must be taken within the first 5 hours of your work period.

I just feel that that spirit of the law requiring the meal break was instituted for the protection of the employee so that businesses could not abuse and force uninterrupted labor. But it does not take into consideration those who do not want the break. When I am forced to take a meal break it is equivalent to someone who wants to take a meal break not getting one. All I am going to do for 30 minutes it twittle my thumbs and think, ''Man� this is 30 minutes wasted.''

Is there any precedence for an employee voluntarily giving up his break? If not, does this law not seem ridiculous for those who do not want it? How can this be challenged?

Thank You.


Asked on 7/24/08, 3:59 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Arkady Itkin Law Office of Arkady Itkin

Re: Required Meal Breaks

This is a great question!

Indeed, your rights to breaks are NON waiveable. The reason that you are forced to take breaks is because even if you give up on them on your own volition, you can still sue your employer for not giving you breaks, and the fact that you give up on breaks yourself is not a defense in court or at the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement.

Employers are concerned about that, as it happens all the time, so they force their employees to comply with this law whether they want to take breaks or not.

You do bring a valid point though!

Thanks,

Arkady Itkin

California Employment Attorney

San Francisco / Sacramento / San Jose

Read more
Answered on 7/25/08, 11:02 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Labor and Employment Law questions and answers in California