My wife had a period where she worked 10 weeks straight w/o a day off. She is saleried exempt. Nothing was provided monitarily in return. She regularly works 6 to 7 days in one week. As well, she doesn't get a 30 minute break, which any hourly employee must have by law. :eek: Is this legal?

If the employee is correctly classified as Salaried Exempt, then there is no legal requirement that overtime be paid no matter how many hours are worked. This is federal law (FLSA).

Breaks are a function of the law of the specific state the employee is working in. Your statement that "doesn't get a 30 minute break, which any hourly employee must have by law" is actually not correct in many states. Some states have break laws and some states do not.

The "worked 10 weeks straight w/o a day off" is another issue that depends on state law. California for example would have a problem with that, but many other states would not.

DAW, I know that California a "one day's rest in seven" law. What is your experience as far as whether this is enforced for exempt employees?

I would be very interested to know how this might work with exempt employees as well. More often then not I have to do some work related things nearly every day. Answering questions that the staff I manage might have over the phone, I don't mind so much. But having to physically go to work and perform job duties, is another thing completely. And having to cancel my personal plans to cover shifts because of staffing issues, is starting to rub me the wrong way fast.

Christa, please note that we're talking only about having to work seven days in a row, not additional compensation for exempt employees.

DAW, I know that California a "one day's rest in seven" law. What is your experience as far as whether this is enforced for exempt employees?

I have no experience one way or the other. My immeadiate prior employer always tried to follow the law, the one before that often did not. Neither of them ended up in court or administrative action on this particular issue to my knowledge. Other then contacting CA-DLSE and asking them, I have no opinion on how "enforced" this issue is for Exempt Employees. The CA-DLSE field enforcement manual might be informative on this subject.

Yes, I am aware of this. But I often DO work 7 days in a row.

Since the law does not prescribe any penalty for violating the 1 days rest in 7, it appears to be only protective in nature. That is, the employer can not fire you for refusing to work the 7th day, but if you wish to waive the right, you can.

In addition, the law is clear that the 1 days rest in 7 is allowed to accumulate for a month period. That is, you can be required to work up to 28 days straight as long as you are give 4 days in a row off.

Boy, how did I miss the accumulation part? :confused: Thanks, Michael.

So did I. Michael, could you please post the reference for this law? It is past time I read the actual wording.

As a "Manager" isn't there a % of time the "manager" must be "managing" other employees vs. doing employee tasks? She spends more that half of her shift NOT managing other employees, but rather in the field doing employee tasks.


As well, I have heard that employees of Wal-Mart filed a Class Action Lawsuit regarding 30 minute breaks for anything worked over 6 hours (they weren't given them) and they won....anyone heard of this?

The issue is whether the employee is correctly classified as exempt. In the Walmart case, they were misclassified. Correctly classified exempt employees don't have to get days off or lunch breaks.

Here's the wage order's language on the day's rest in seven:

(F) 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 when the nature of the employment reasonably requires the employee to work seven (7) or more consecutive days; provided, however, that in each calendar month, the employee shall receive the equivalent of one (1) day's rest in seven (7).

Thanks, Megan. :D

Also, thank Megan.