Opinion ID: 2780544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Day of Rest

Text: California Labor Code section 551 provides that “[e]very person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.” Section 552 safeguards that statutory entitlement by providing that “[n]o employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven.” Consider the following example. An employer whose workweek (like Nordstrom’s) begins each Sunday schedules a full-time employee to work as follows: Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday OFF WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK OFF If the statutes apply to any consecutive seven days, the employer has violated them. If, on the other hand, the 10 MENDOZA V. NORDSTROM statutes apply to each workweek, the employer has not violated them.1 Each interpretation finds some support in the ambiguous text and in policy considerations. On the one hand, neither section 551 nor section 552 uses the word “workweek” to suggest a measuring period. Yet the term “workweek” is used in surrounding provisions of the Labor Code—such as section 510 (requiring overtime pay), section 511 (permitting alternative workweeks), section 513 (governing makeup work time), and section 556 (setting forth an exemption from sections 551 and 552)—demonstrating that the legislature could have used the workweek concept had it intended to do so. We may not insert a term that the California legislature chose to omit. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1858 (“In the construction of a statute . . . , the office of the Judge is . . . not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted . . . .”). Moreover, the purpose of the law plainly is to avoid overworking employees by providing a regular day of rest in most circumstances. Allowing 12 consecutive days of work every two weeks could run counter to that purpose. On the other hand, section 510(a), pertaining to overtime, provides in part that “any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee.” That wording hints both that the concept of working a seventh day encompasses the concept of the 1 Given the facts alleged by Mendoza, the answer to this question will determine whether Nordstrom did or did not violate these provisions on some occasions. MENDOZA V. NORDSTROM 11 workweek, and that the prohibition on working seven days is not absolute. In addition, Wage Order No. 7 provides: The provisions of Labor Code Sections 551 and 552 regarding one (1) day’s rest in seven (7) shall not be construed to prevent an accumulation of days of rest [in circumstances not applicable here]; provided, however, that in each calendar month, the employee shall receive the equivalent of one (1) day’s rest in seven (7). Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11070(3)(H). The Wage Order also states that “[a]n employee may be employed on seven (7) workdays in one workweek when the total hours of employment during such workweek do not exceed 30 and the total hours of employment in any one workday thereof do not exceed six (6).” Id. § 11070(3)(F) (emphasis added). The Wage Order is “to be accorded the same dignity” as a statute and is “presumptively valid.” Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513, 527–28 (Cal. 2012). The phrasing of the Wage Order suggests obliquely—but by no means directly—that sections 551 and 552 apply to a “workweek” and that the overarching purpose of the law can be met when an employee receives four days off per month. We find both interpretations plausible. We have found no legislative history that bears on this question, which affects nearly all California employers. Nor have we found any California appellate case that answers it. 12 MENDOZA V. NORDSTROM