F SECURE SPECTRUM TRIAL

We conclude, contrary to the Court of Appeal, that the answer is yes. Code, § 226) and paid within statutory deadlines when an employee leaves the job (id., § 203). 4-2001, §§ 11(B), 12(B).) The primary issue before us is whether this extra pay for missed breaks constitutes “wages” that must be reported on statutorily required wage statements during employment (Lab. If an employer unlawfully makes an employee work during all or part of a meal or rest period, the employer must pay the employee an additional hour of pay. California law requires employers to provide daily meal and rest breaks to most unsalaried employees. S258966 Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. * Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. S258966 Second Appellate District, Division Four B256232 Los Angeles County Superior Court BC372146 Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Jenkins, and O’Leary* concurred. SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA GUSTAVO NARANJO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) the court of appeal erred in concluding that extra pay for missed breaks does not constitute 'wages' to be reported on wage statements during employment and (2) the seven percent default rate of prejudgment interest set by the state Constitution applies to amounts due for failure to provide meal and rest breaks.

F SECURE SPECTRUM TRIAL

The trial court determined that Defendant had violated the meal break laws for a certain period and that a failure to pay meal break premiums could support claims under the wage statement and timely payment statutes.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of employees of Defendant seeking an additional hour of pay, so-called 'premium pay,' for each day on which Defendant failed to provide employees a legally-compliant meal break. Plaintiff, who was suspended from his job as a guard after leaving his post to take a meal break. The Supreme Court held that the additional hour of pay an employer must pay an employee if the employer unlawfully makes the employee work during all or part of a meal or rest period constitutes 'wages' that must be reported on statutorily-required wage statements during employment and paid within statutory deadlines when an employee leaves the job.

F secure spectrum