The Ninth Circuit last week again asked the Supreme Court to answer California employment law questions. Employment law is a common subject of Ninth Circuit requests. (E.g., here, here, and here.)
In Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc., the federal court said it could use help deciding these issues: 1. Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, is an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts required to relieve attendants of all duties during rest breaks, including the duty to be available to respond to an emergency call if one arises during a rest period?, 2. Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, may an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts require attendants to be available to respond to emergency calls during their meal periods without a written agreement that contains an on-duty meal period revocation clause? If such a clause is required, will a general at-will employment clause satisfy this requirement?, 3. Do violations of the meal period regulations, which require payment of a “premium wage” for each improper meal period, give rise to claims under sections 203 and 226 of the California Labor Code where the employer does not include the premium wage in the employee’s pay or pay statements during the course of the violations?
The Supreme Court isn’t required to answer the Ninth Circuit’s questions, but it probably will. The court has said “yes” in 20 out of the last 21 federal appeals court requests, and even the one denial during that time wasn’t really a denial. There hasn’t been a flat “no” since March 2012. We should know by the beginning of March — give or take — whether it will answer the questions.
