Meal and rest breaks have been a focal point of class action disputes. Breaks have long been required under California law. But over the years, conflicting law has muddied the waters on break requirements, creating uncertainty for employers and employees alike. On July 22, 2008, a California Court of Appeal issued a ruling, Brinker Restaurant Group v. Superior Court, which provides much needed clarity on the break issue.
The plaintiffs in Brinker attempted to represent a class of over 59,000 employees against their employer, an owner of several restaurant chains. The plaintiffs' primary claim was that the employees had been denied breaks. They claimed that any time record failing to show that required breaks had been taken established liability. Because employees in California are entitled to one hour of pay for every missed break, and because claims for breaks can go back up to four years, the employer faced millions of dollars in liability.
The plaintiffs submitted numerous employee statements as evidence of the alleged break violations. And they claimed that the employer could generate computer records proving that the violations had occurred. The employer countered that it had a blanket written policy providing all of its employees with the right to take breaks. It also argued that determining whether any particular employee had been denied a break would require the court to look at the facts relating to that particular employee. For example, it was impossible to tell from the time records whether a missed break was a result of employer pressure or employee choice. Thus, the employer argued, a class action was inappropriate.
The court in Brinker held that employers need only provide employees with the opportunity to take breaks, not ensure that breaks are actually taken. The court found that to hold otherwise would give employees the incentive to intentionally skip breaks and then sue to collect wages for missed breaks. Because the time records did not reflect the reason for the missed break, each claim would have to be decided individually. The class action claim, therefore, was inappropriate.
The court reached other important conclusions as well. It held that employers need only authorize and permit rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof, and that rest breaks need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period. It also concluded that "rolling" meal breaks, are not required, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that when meal breaks are taken close to the beginning of a shift, employees are entitled to meal periods for every five hours worked after the initial meal period. And, the court determined that while employers cannot coerce, require, or compel employees to work off the clock, employers are liable only if they knew or should have know that employees were working off the clock.
Because all of the plaintiffs' claims required case-by-case analysis, the court refused to certify the proposed class of aggrieved employees, effectively killing the lawsuit. The day Brinker was decided, Gov. Schwarzenegger issued a statement approving the clarity that the decision will hopefully bring to the law of meal and rest breaks.
Brinker might be appealed to the California Supreme Court, and other California courts of appeal might reach different conclusions in similar cases. In addition, the California legislature might attempt to rewrite the law in this area -- although the Governor's support for the ruling would likely make that difficult while he remains in office. For now, however, Brinker provides useful guidance in this highly contentious area of California employment law.
