Why Does California Impose Such High Penalties for Rest Break Violations?

Quick Hits

• California employers face steep penalties for failing to provide compliant rest breaks, including additional pay, potential wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, and attorneys’ fees.
• The high penalties reflect the consensus among the legislature, courts, and labor commissioner that rest breaks are essential for employee health, safety, and productivity, benefiting both employees and employers.
• Employers may want to ensure they adopt clear policies, ensure breaks are duty-free, accurately calculate premiums, document compliance, eliminate discouraging practices, train managers, and conduct audits to manage litigation risks.

Why are the penalties so high? Some may claim that it just reflects a strong plaintiffs’ lobby in Sacramento. But for California employers that need to train their managers to ensure rest break compliance, a more comprehensive explanation is needed: Penalties are high because the consensus among the legislature, the courts, and the labor commissioner is that rest breaks are a win-win for California employers—a boon to employee health and safety and an essential element for improving employee productivity and efficiency. For employers, the law’s bite reflects this understanding of California law: short, regular pauses make people safer and more efficient. A Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision from the 1950s, Mitchell v. Greinetz, vividly illustrates this understanding of the benefits of breaks.

The Loom Room That Proved the Point

In Mitchell, a weaving shop ran “primitive hand-operated looms,” a demanding setup requiring constant attention and precise coordination—work that the court described as “intricate and fatiguing” and, after a few hours, “monotonous and tiring.” The employer initially operated an eight-hour day, but noticed that employees went home exhausted and returned still fatigued, a cycle that led to illness and breakdowns—bad for the employees and bad for the business.

The Productivity Jolt From Coffee Breaks

Against the backdrop of the World War II labor shortage, the employer had historically staffed the weaving operation with young men, but “when the war effort took nearly all young men,” the employer was forced to look elsewhere for labor. Older men could not handle the physical demands and coordination required by the “primitive” looms, and the employer ultimately hired women because they possessed the necessary coordination and skill for the work. The court expressly tied this replacement to the wartime shortage of young men, situating the shop-floor transformation squarely within the exigencies of the early 1940s.

After conferring with the workforce, the company adopted two fifteen-minute rest breaks—midmorning and midafternoon—so employees could step away from the looms and relax with a soft drink or a cup of coffee. In practice, employees stayed on the same floor during breaks, aided by a table and equipment for making tea or coffee—essentially a forerunner to the modern breakroom espresso bar. The employer soon noticed that those short pauses enhanced performance. He testified that the breaks and shorter hours transformed four of the poorest performers into the best in the shop within weeks; without the breaks, he would have needed another shift to maintain production. The employer also observed that the female employees produced more in six-and-a-half hours than the young men had in eight before they were drafted into military service.

The Legal Bottom Line

The court concluded that the five- to twenty-minute “coffee breaks” promoted efficiency and thus had to be counted as hours worked. The short rest periods were not mere perks, as they drove measurable gains in output. On these facts, the Tenth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the rest breaks were compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While the break time was beneficial to employees, it was considered equally—if not more—beneficial to the employer, who made the breaks mandatory once their advantages became clear. The court’s holding reflected what many states had begun to codify: short rest breaks are an accepted part of employment and are treated as work time, because they increase efficiency. This decision also reflects the consensus of California courts and the labor commissioner that scheduled pauses are integral to productive work and must be paid as time worked. That is why steep penalties are imposed in California when an employer fails to provide compliant rest break opportunities.

Key Takeaways

Because California’s legislature, courts, and the labor commissioner agree that paid, duty-free rest breaks are not only compassionate but also operationally smart, California employers must ensure that they provide compliant breaks and document their compliance to manage litigation risks. The following steps can help employers remain compliant with California’s rest break requirements:

Adopting clear and detailed written policies: Consider presenting policies that mirror the wage orders and case law; expressly authorize duty‑free, paid breaks; prohibit on‑call or interrupted breaks; address timing “insofar as practicable”; and include sample rest break schedules.

Making breaks truly duty‑free: Prohibiting work during breaks, refraining from interruptions, and removing any on‑call, radio, or device‑monitoring requirements during breaks can help employees enjoy their breaks.

Calculating and truing‑up premiums correctly: Consider ensuring that pay for missed‑break premiums is made at the “regular rate of pay,” including nondiscretionary bonuses, commissions, differentials, piece‑rate earnings, etc.; and implementing timely payment and periodic true‑ups for monthly/quarterly/annual earnings.

Tracking document provision and exceptions: Employers may want to determine methods to capture contemporaneous attestations that compliant breaks were authorized and permitted, and use exception–based workflows that prompt automatic premium payments when compliance fails.

Eliminating discouraging practices: Employers may want to ensure that their productivity metrics, schedules, handheld/dispatch systems, and staffing models account for rest time.

Training managers and enforcing neutrality: Employers may want to remind managers that they should not encourage employees to skip or delay breaks, and that employees should not be required to be reachable or work during breaks.

Responding and auditing: Employers may want to ensure that when violations occur, they pay the premium and record it accurately on wage statements. They may also want to regularly use internal audits to identify patterns, ensure regular‑rate true‑ups, remediate root causes, and preserve evidence of good‑faith compliance.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and California Class Action and PAGA Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California, Class Action, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal covers developments in California employment laws, including California Onboarding and California Workplace Posters. Premium subscribers have access to details about California laws and downloadable templates. All client-users have access to updates. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts