This afternoon at 1:30, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, no. S140348. Although Murphy is neither a UCL action nor a class action, I'm planning to cover the oral argument today and report on it here tomorrow. The primary legal issue has raised a lot of interest in wage and hour class action circles:
Is a claim under Labor Code section 226.7 for the required payment of "one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation" for each day that an employer fails to provide mandatory meal or rest periods to an employee (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010, subds. (11)(D), 12(B)) governed by the three-year statute of limitations for a claim for compensation (Code Civ. Proc., § 338) or the one-year statute of limitations for a claim for payment of a penalty (Code Civ. Proc., § 340)?
Last week, a request for extended media coverage (presumably, cameras) was filed, and promptly denied. So old-fashioned print/web coverage will have to do. Meanwhile, for everyone's reading pleasure, here are the main briefs:
Opening Brief on the Merits (filed 06/08/06)
Answer Brief on the Merits (filed 08/21/06)
Reply Brief on the Merits (filed 10/11/06)
Omnibus Response to Employer Group Amici Briefs (filed 12/19/06).
Many thanks to the reader who graciously provided copies of these briefs.
Where can I find a copy of Steven Drapkin's amicus brief filed 4/27/07?
Posted by: Rebecca | Thursday, May 03, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Hi Rebecca, the amicus briefs listed above are the only ones I have. If someone sends me additional amicus briefs, I'll be happy to post them online.
Posted by: Kimberly A. Kralowec | Sunday, May 06, 2007 at 09:02 AM