Last week, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in a closely watched case dealing with meal and rest breaks for employees.
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court clarified meal and rest break practices for employers in California; however, the case is generating interest in other parts of the country as well because of the prevalence of lawsuits around these issues. Brinker operates Chili’s, Romano’s Macaroni Grill and Maggiano’s Little Italy restaurants across the United States.
In Brinker, the California court took up two issues: (1) if it is enough for employers to provide an employee with a break or if they are required to ensure that the break is taken; and (2) when during the workday are breaks taken and how long those breaks must be.
In a unanimous decision, widely interpreted as favorable to employers (although there have been some claims that it also benefits employees), the court said:
- employers must provide nonexempt workers with a break but they don’t have to ensure that the break is taken;
- nonexempt workers are entitled to one 10-minute rest break for shifts between 3.5 and 6 hours in length, two 10-minute breaks during shifts between 6 and 10 hours long, and three breaks for shifts between 10 and 14 hours long;
- meals breaks should occur before the fifth hour of work; and
- rest breaks should be allowed in the middle of each four-hour work period but they don’t have to be provided before a meal break.
In practice the decision about providing a break, but not enforcing the break, means that California employers are off the hook for making sure employees aren’t working during meal breaks. That question was considered the most contentious element before the California Supreme Court.
In response to the opinion, Rex Heinke, a partner with Akin, Gump, Strauss Hauer & Field and Brinker’s lead attorney said, “the Court’s definitive resolution of these critical issues offers clear and much-needed guidance not only to Brinker and their team members, but to hundreds of thousands of employers and employees statewide.”
The court’s opinion clarified some of the outstanding legal questions presented in the Brinker case, but remanded the case back to the lower court to address other issues such as whether or not the meal break claims can continue be part of the broader class action.
The litigation was sparked initially by a class action suit filed by Brinker employees who alleged that they were pressured to work through their breaks. The lower court authorized a class action about the frequency and duration of rest breaks, which the California Supreme Court upheld in its decision last week.
For more information, the U.S. Department of Labor has state-by-state information about meal and rest break provisions on its website.