Brinker Restaurant Corp., which operates Chili’s Grill & Bar, Romano’s Macaroni Grill, and Maggiano’s Little Italy restaurants, was hit with a class action lawsuit on behalf of 59,000 restaurant workers, charging that Brinker failed to follow California meal and rest break rules.
The employees alleged, among other things, that Brinker sometimes made employees take early lunches just an hour into the workday and then required them to work in excess of five hours straight without another meal period. Brinker argued that this practice was legal because the law required it to provide a first meal period to hourly employees when they worked more than five hours—and that meal period could occur any time during that work period—and a second meal period wasn’t required until employees worked more than 10 hours. But the employees contended that the law actually requires a “rolling five-hour” period, obligating employers to provide a meal period for each five-hour block of time, regardless of how many hours are worked in a day. For example, if an employee takes a meal period just one hour into his or her work shift, and then works another five hours, a second meal period is required, even if the employee has not yet worked 10 hours that day.
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
Now, in a victory for employers, a California court of appeals has ruled that the law does not impose a rolling five-hour meal period requirement (i.e., that a meal period must be taken for every five-hour block of work). California employers, said the court, have a duty to make a first 30-minute meal period available to an hourly employee who is permitted to work more than five hours per day, unless the total work period that day will be six hours or less and the employer and employee agree to waive that meal period. This interpretation permits Brinker’s practice of early lunching, as a second meal period would not be required under any circumstances unless the employee works at least 10 hours for the day.
Note that this decision is currently unpublished, which means other courts cannot rely on it as precedent. However, given the important nature of the ruling, there’s a good chance the appeals court will decide to publish the case. We’ll keep you posted.
Additional Resources:
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, Calif. Court of Appeals (Dist. 4) No. D04931, 2007 (unpublished)