The BP Blast!: A California Employment Law Blog

Is the Indigestion Caused By California's Meal and Rest Period Requirements Nearing an End?; California Court of Appeals Clarifies Meal and Rest Period Requirements

California employers have been under siege from plaintiffs claiming massive wage & hour violations. In a rare positive wage & hour decision for employers, a California Court of Appeal has clarified the meal and rest period requirements for California employees. In addition, the same Court significantly narrowed a plaintiff's ability to certify a putative class action based upon alleged meal and rest period violations.

In Brinker Restaurant Corporation et al. v. Superior Court (7/22/08), several waiters/waitresses brought a putative class action against Brinker for alleged meal and rest period violations, as well as for unpaid hours worked. The servers claimed Brinker failed to absolutely ensure employees received their meal and rest periods. The servers further claimed that Brinker's policy of requiring/permitting employees to take a meal period near the start of their shift, and then requiring the employee to continue working for five or more hours without an additional meal period violated the Labor Code. Finally, the employees claimed that they worked off-the-clock without compensation. Based upon the alleged "across the board" violations, the employees sought class certification of their claims. Brinker's position was that it provides employees with an opportunity to take an appropriate meal and rest period at some point during their shift.

The Court of Appeal rejected the employees' contentions and held that employers need only provide, not ensure, that meal and rest periods are taken. The court explained that the language in section 512 of the California Labor Code means that employers need only offer meal breaks and do not need to police their employees to ensure that meal breaks are actually taken. However, the court did provide examples of how an employer would be non-compliant, such as when an employer did not schedule meal periods, did not have a policy authorizing meal periods, or pressured employees to skip meals. The court noted that if an employer knew that employees were working while eating, and did not take steps to address the situation, the employer would be depriving employees of their breaks and therefore would have failed to "provide" meal periods. The court also expressly rejected the concept of a "rolling 5-hour meal period" advanced by the plaintiffs, holding that employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked. An employer need only provide a 30-minute break once at any time during a work period that does not exceed ten hours.In addition, while addressing the class certification issues, the Court of Appeal determined that "because the rest and meal breaks need only be 'made available' and not 'ensured,' individual issues predominate" over class claims as each putative class member's situation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Thus, based upon the evidence presented to the trial court, the Court of Appeal determined that the employees' claims were not amenable to class treatment. The holding should, in effect, make it more difficult to certify class-wide claims for meal period, rest period, and overtime violations.

Going Forward

The Brinker decision is likely to be appealed, finally placing the issue before the California Supreme Court. Currently, the decision provides California employers with some flexibility in scheduling and permitting employees to take their meal and rest periods. In addition, where the court focused on the Company's policies regarding meal & rest periods, the decision highlights the importance of employers' policies and procedures regarding their wage and hour practices.

[UPDATE: THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS ACCEPTED REVIEW OF THIS DECISION. EMPLOYERS SHOULD SIT TIGHT UNTIL THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT MAKES ITS RULING.]