|
OREGON SUPREME COURT REVERSES CONTROVERSIAL “REST PERIOD” DECISION
As you may recall, in June 2007 the Oregon Court of Appeals issued a highly controversial opinion concluding that employees could maintain a private wage claim action when rest periods were not provided. The analysis of the Court of Appeals was that because Oregon requires a paid rest break of at least 10 minutes for every four hours worked, in essence employees receive four hours pay even though they have just worked three hours and fifty minutes. The Court of Appeals concluded that when employees worked during their rest periods, they were not being compensated.
The Oregon Supreme Court has disagreed and reversed the Court of Appeals decision. Carefully reviewing the underlying statutes and regulations, the Supreme Court found that an employee who takes a rest break does not actually stop “working” for wage and hour purposes. It was held that an employee who works four hours and takes a rest break actually “works” the same amount of time, again technically for wage and hour purposes, as an employee who works four hours and does not take a rest break.
As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that employees who were not provided rest breaks for a four-hour period of work, but who were paid for four hours of “work” for that shift, had been fully paid pursuant to Oregon law, and cannot pursue a private wage claim.
The Oregon Supreme Court reiterated that there are still remedies available against employers who do not provide required rest breaks. For example, BOLI can assess civil penalties not to exceed $1,000 for willful violations, and also can seek criminal prosecution of employers who violate these rest break requirements.
However, as a result of this opinion an employee who is not provided rest periods cannot sue an employer for a wage claim violation, seeking penalties and attorneys’ fees.
For more details, or to discuss further, please contact either
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
or
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
at Dunn Carney.
Brian Talcott of Dunn Carney wrote an Amicus curiae brief (“friend of the court”) for this case on behalf of the Oregon Restaurant Association. |
Employment and Labor Team
Robert L. Allen
Timothy J. Bernasek
George J. "Jack" Cooper
Scott A. Jonsson
Elizabeth C. Knight
Tamsen L. Leachman
Kelly J. Martin
Renee R. Stineman
|
