The Supreme Court today agreed to answer employment law questions posed by the Ninth Circuit.
The case is Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc., and the Ninth Circuit’s questions are: 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?
By our count, this is the 13th straight Ninth Circuit request granted by the Supreme Court, and the 21st out of the last 22. (This grant did take 84 days, however, a bit longer than usual.) Even the one denial during that time wasn’t a real denial. There hasn’t been a flat “no” in six years.
