Daily Blast April 12, 2012

In a long-anticipated decision that will be of interest to almost all of your clients, the Supreme Court issued its opinion on April 12, 2012 in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court (Apr. 12 2012, S166350) __ Cal.4th ___.

In Brinker, the Court decided a number of important issues regarding the scope of California employers’ duties to provide rest and meal break periods to employees. Brinker arises from a class action brought by the employees of Brinker restaurants, including Chili’s, Romano’s Macaroni Grill and Corner Bakery and Café. The class claims generally allege that Brinker failed to provide rest and meal breaks to its eligible employees.

The California Supreme Court granted review to consider the trial court’s certification of several subclasses. The Supreme Court held that the trial court need not decide threshold issues concerning the elements of the class claims at the certification stage, but nevertheless accepted the parties’ invitation to resolve several issues concerning an employer’s duty to its employees concerning breaks. The Court’s opinion sets forth several direct rulings concerning those duties:

1. Duty to Provide Rest Periods: Applying and interpreting the Labor Code and relevant Wage Orders, the Supreme Court held that “Employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.” [Slip Opn., p. 20.]

2. RestPeriodTiming: Although an employer is under no duty to provide a rest period before a meal period, “in the context of an eight-hour shift, ‘a general matter,’ one rest break should fall on either side of the meal break. Shorter or longer shifts and other factors that render such scheduling impracticable may alter this general rule.” [Slip Opn., p. 23.]

3. Duty to Provide Meal Period: An employer satisfies its duty to provide a meal period if “it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so.” Further, the Supreme Court explained that “the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. Bona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer’s obligations, and work by a relieved employee during a meal break does not thereby place the employer in violation of its obligations and create liability . . . .” [Id. at pp. 36-37.]

4. Meal Period Timing: The Labor Code “requires a first meal period no later than the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work, and a second meal period no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work. No additional timing requirements exist under current state law.

The Brinker opinion will finally provide employers with some clarity of the duties imposed under California law. Although Brinker affirmed most of the trial court’s class certifications, its opinion will likely severely restrict the permissible claims brought by employees concerning rest and meal break periods. Given its clear language, the holding of Brinker will be of immediate interest to all California employers subject to the rest and meal period statutes and regulations.

Related Practices

• Appellate