In a recent decision, a
appeals court refused to allow a class action to go forward on claims that the employer
didn’t provide employees with meal and rest breaks. We’ll explain why.
Class Action Challenges Break Policy
H.F. Cox, Inc., a
company, is in the business of hauling gasoline and related products. The company
has several terminals in
from which it dispatches drivers.
A group of employees filed a class action lawsuit against Cox on
behalf of about 900 drivers charging, among other things, that they missed meal
and rest breaks. In particular, the drivers argued, Cox imposed tight delivery
schedules that left no time for breaks, and Cox was aware that drivers could
not both take breaks and make deliveries on time. What’s more, some drivers claimed
that they had been trained by Cox not to take breaks and to instead eat while
driving. The drivers also pointed out that company personnel manuals included meal
and rest break terms for administrative employees but were silent on the issue
of breaks for drivers.
No Commonality
A
appeals court has now ruled that the claims were unsuitable for class action
treatment.1 One of the requirements for a class action, the court explained, is
that there is “commonality”—that is, there are questions of law and fact common
to all class members. Here, however, common questions didn’t predominate on the
meal and rest break issue.
The appeals court pointed to evidence that Cox scheduled drivers
for 10 hours of work within a 12-hour period to allow for breaks and that all
terminals have break areas. In addition, the court considered declarations from
drivers stating that they took breaks, could take breaks, and saw others taking
breaks, and that Cox stressed the importance of breaks. Also, Cox’s driver orientation
manual specified that drivers were permitted to take 15-minute rest breaks and
a 30-minute unpaid meal break. The court refused to interpret the personnel manuals’
silence on the issue of drivers’ breaks as a policy forbidding breaks.
In sum, there was substantial evidence that there was no uniform
policy or practice forbidding or preventing breaks. And, any driver who didn’t
take necessary breaks did so for individual reasons that weren’t common to all drivers.
Thus, a class action wasn’t appropriate.
(The appeals court also ruled on a different aspect of this case—whether
drivers qualified for the motor carrier exemption. This aspect of the decision
is discussed in the April 2008 issue of CWHA.)
The Importance of Written Policies
This decision makes a good case for ensuring that you have a
written meal and rest period policy, as it can be helpful ammunition to defeat
class claims charging that your organization had a policy or practice of
denying breaks. For a sample policy, see CWHA’s exclusive Special Report, “Meal
and Rest Periods in
Q & A with the Experts.”
_
1
Inc.),
Court of Appeals (Dist. 2) No.
B199605, 2007