A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

California court upholds weekly day of rest for employees.

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

A day of rest. The very notion can seem quaint and antiquated. As we have become a primarily 7-day-a-week working culture, most American employees just laugh at the notion of a guaranteed day off every week.

However, the courts are confirming this mandatory day of rest of employees. It is important to understand what this means for you and your workplace rights and obligations.

California Supreme Court Ruling

According to an article in the San Francisco Business Times online, the California Supreme Court ruled that employees have the right to one day of rest in every work-week, and that employers are prohibited from making employees work more than six days in any seven.

This can be a significant victory for employees who seek to establish a reasonable work-life balance. On the other hand, some workers don’t give the same value to a day of rest, so questions remain as to whether they have to take that day off.

Although this decision can be valuable to some, it does not provide complete clarity or end the potential for disagreement and litigation. This is not an uncommon outcome of a major court decision.

According to the article, questions remain regarding what constitutes “causing” employees to work without coercion. In situations where working that extra seventh day could lead to promotion or general visibility to employers, it is up to the employees to make sound decisions. These issues are likely to comprise the next wave of employment litigation in this arena.

Like any employment law issue, it is important to work with an attorney who understands this area of law and can help protect your rights in the workplace.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.