United States v. Ailemen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that California law only requires the employer to provide a meal 13 period and does not impose liability “for a failure to ensure that an employee actually availed 14 herself of the meal period”
• denying class certification where the plaintiffs theory was that “stores were too busy to give employees a meaningful opportunity to take breaks” as to prove the claim would require “an individual inquiry into each store, each shift, each employee”
• “it is apparent that plaintiff 7 has failed to identify any theory of liability that presents a common question.”
• “Cicairos is not persuasive authority for the proposition that employers must ensure that their employees take meal breaks and this Court is not bound by the court of appeals’ decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).