Supreme Court of California

Reset A A Font size: Print

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827

In a case including a claim alleging that an employer failed to provide rest periods as required by Labor Code section 226.7, an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing defendant on that claim is reversed, where: 1) Labor Code section 1194 does not authorize an award of attorney's fees to employees who prevail on a section 226.7 action for the nonprovision of statutorily mandated rest periods, so Labor Code section 218.5's provision that it does not apply to any action for which attorney's fees are recoverable under section 1194 does not come into play; but 2) the two-way fee shifting of section 218.5 does not apply to section 226.7 claims for the nonprovision of statutorily mandated rest periods, as such claims do not constitute "action[s] brought for the nonpayment of wages."

Appellate Information

  • Decided 04/30/2012
  • Published 04/30/2012

Judges

  • Liu

Court

  • Supreme Court of California

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  • Ellyn Moscowitz, Robert L. Rediger