7/30/2008

In a long-awaited ruling that could put the brakes on some wage and hour class actions in California, an appeals court has provided welcome guidance and relief to employers on their responsibility to provide meal breaks and pay for "off-the-clock" work.

The case involved a lawsuit filed on behalf of employees at 137 restaurants owned and operated by Brinker Restaurant Corp., including Chili's Grill & Bar, Romano's Macaroni Grill, and Maggiano's Little Italy. The suit charged that Brinker violated California law by not ensuring that workers took meal and rest breaks and by failing to compensate employees for any missed or shortened breaks. The suit also alleged that Brinker forced employees to work off the clock without pay.

---

Just added: Audio conference on Sept. 8, 2008! Find out how the Brinker decision impacts your policies and procedures. Sign up now.

---

In deciding that the lawsuit was improperly certified as a class action, a California appeals court has now ruled that:

• Employers must only make meal and rest periods available, but they do not have to ensure that breaks are taken. Employers may not impede, discourage, or dissuade employees from taking meal or rest breaks.


• While employers must authorize and permit employees to take rest breaks every four hours (or major fraction thereof), the break does not have to be in the middle of the work period if it would be impracticable to do so.


• Employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked, and the practice of "early lunching"—which can result in an employee working more than five consecutive hours without a second meal break—is not prohibited.


• Employers can be held liable for employees working off the clock only if the employer knew or should have known that the employee was doing so.

Based on these holdings, the appeals court decided that the case couldn't go forward as a class action. In particular, because breaks must only be made available and not ensured, determining why a particular employee missed meal and rest breaks involved individual inquiries. The off-the-clock claims, too, weren't amenable to class treatment because whether an employee was illegally required to work off the clock involved individual questions as to whether, in that particular instance, Brinker knew or should have known that the employee was working off clock or improperly changed time records.

Read the opinion.

What's the Impact on Your Meal and Rest Period Policies and Practices?

On Monday, Sept. 8, 2008, join us for a brand-new audio conference—Meal and Rest Breaks in California: Why the Brinker Ruling Is Good News for Employers, and Where Caution Is Still Required—with an exclusive focus on the new decision.

While the new ruling is a big win for California employers, it doesn't mean you can completely relax with respect to meal and rest breaks. During our 90-minute audio conference, employment lawyers Anthony J. Zaller and Brian F. Van Vleck, both with the Los Angeles law firm of Van Vleck Turner & Zaller, will discuss: how the new case affects your scheduling of meal and rest breaks; how the case's primary conclusion—that employers must merely provide these breaks rather than hover over employees to make sure they're taken—could significantly change your meal and rest period obligations; why it will now be more difficult for employees to file meal and rest period class actions; the areas in which you still need to exercise caution; and much, much more.

For more information and to register, click here.