In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, the Supreme Court held although the remedy set forth in section 226.7 is properly characterized as a wage, an employer's failure to pay that wage "does not form part of a section 226.7 violation ... ." There, two employees asserted claims against their employers in superior court under the Labor Code and the UCL, including a claim under section 226.7 predicated on a failure to provide rest breaks. (Kirby, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1248-1249.) After the employees entered into a settlement regarding the section 226.7 claim, one of the employers secured a fee award under section 218.5, which authorizes an award to the prevailing party "'in any action brought for the nonpayment of wages ... .'" (Kirby, supra, at p. 1248.) In reversing the award, the Supreme Court concluded that notwithstanding Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007), a claim under section 226.7 is not an "'action brought for the nonpayment of wages,'" within the meaning of section 218.5 (italics added). (Kirby, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1256-1257.) The court determined that the term "'nonpayment of wages,'" in the context of the phrase "'action brought for the nonpayment of wages,'" identifies an alleged legal violation, not a remedy, as it would be absurd to bring an action to obtain the nonpayment of wages. (Id. at p. 1256.) The court further determined that the sole legal violation specified in section 226.7 is the failure to provide meal and rest breaks, stating: "Nonpayment of wages is not the gravamen of a section 226.7 violation. Instead, subdivision (a) of section 226.7 defines a legal violation solely by reference to an employer's obligation to provide meal and rest breaks. The 'additional hour of pay' provided for in subdivision (b) is the legal remedy for a violation of subdivision (a), but whether or not it has been paid is irrelevant to whether section 226.7 was violated. ... The failure to provide required meal and rest breaks is what triggers a violation of section 226.7. Accordingly, a section 226.7 claim is not an action brought for nonpayment of wages; it is an action brought for nonprovision of meal or rest breaks." (Kirby, supra, at pp. 1256-1257.) That reading of section 218.5, the court explained, comports with Murphy: "To say that a section 226.7 remedy is a wage ... is not to say that the legal violation triggering the remedy is nonpayment of wages." (53 Cal.4th at p. 1257.)