First Wednesday — A
Monthly Discussion of Employment Law Issues and Other Hot Topics for Management
|
New
Helps
Employers
In the past
several years there have been countless wage and hour cases in
In Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
(Hohnbaum, et al.) 2008 Cal.App. LEXIS 1138, the court articulated a
standard for providing meal and rest breaks, and clarified when, during a
shift, the breaks must be provided. The court also made significant rulings
regarding wage and hour class actions – but the court’s discussion of meal and
rest breaks, which has been a very confused topic recently, deserves attention
for its impact on day-to-day management.
The Brinker Facts:
Brinker
Restaurant Corporation operates 137 restaurants in
The civil suit
against Brinker followed, and the employees alleged they were told to take half
hour meal breaks during the first hour of their shifts, and then were not
allowed a second lunch break even if they worked up to nine consecutive hours
after the first lunch break. Brinker argued that it was only required to give
one half hour meal break anytime during the first five hours of work, and
another half hour meal break after the tenth hour of work. The company also
argued that the restaurant employees did not want to be forced to take their
lunch break in the middle of their shift when they made most of their money.
The employees also claimed it was the employer’s duty to make sure they took
their meal breaks and that Brinker failed to pay them for work performed
“off-the-clock”.
In the midst of
the confusion that has existed over the past several years regarding meal
periods and breaks, and the on-again, off-again efforts at regulatory
intervention, the decision by the Court of Appeal is dramatic and clear. The court’s lengthy and precise ruling states
that: (1) employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade workers from taking
meal breaks and rest periods, but they need only provide for them, not ensure they are taken; (2) employers
only need to authorize and permit rest periods every four hours (or a major
fraction thereof) and the rest periods don’t have to be in the middle of each
work period if having a break at the shift’s midpoint is impracticable; (3)
employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive
hours worked; and (4) employers cannot coerce, require, or compel employees to
work off the clock, but should only be held liable for employees working
off-the-clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so.
The court also
held that determining whether employees were denied breaks or rightfully earned
overtime pay required individual inquiries that could not be decided, at least
in this case, on a class action basis. The court then directed the trial court
to vacate its order certifying the class action.
Conclusion
The Brinker case was immediately hailed as a
major win for employers as many companies have struggled with the logistics of
running a business and navigating the minefield of
(© 2008 Thoits, Love, Hershberger & McLean)
First Wednesday
Distribution List:
- If you are not receiving this newsletter directly, please send me
your e-mail address and I will add you to the First Wednesday Distribution
List.
- If you would like this
newsletter redirected to others within or outside your organization,
please send me their e-mail addresses.
- First Wednesday is a publication of general
applicability and not specific to any set of facts. Thus, it should not be relied upon for
any specific case or matter without further discussion. No attorney-client relationship is formed
as a result of your reading or replying to this newsletter, which is not
intended to provide legal advice on any specific matter, but rather to
provide insight into current developments and issues.
|
Thoits, Love, Hershberger
& McLean Facsimile:
(650) 325-5572 |
|
