Relief to Employers – Meal & Rest Decision Makes It Tougher For Employees To Prevail
Recently, one of California’s Appellate Courts came to a decision that might possibly swing the lawsuit pendulum back in favor of employers. Until recently, California’s courts have held the position that employers were responsible to take steps to ensure their employees take meal and rest breaks. However after Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the burden now shifts to employees to prove that they were prevented from taking breaks.
Prior to this decision, many plaintiff’s attorneys brought class action lawsuits on behalf of an entire class of employees if employers did not take remedial measures to ensure their employees took a meal period for every 5 hours worked and a rest break for every 4 hours worked. Without much guidance as to the intention of the labor code, employers were at risk if they could not prove that they had policies in place and took action to require employees to take those breaks. Employees will no longer enjoy success in bringing meal and rest break lawsuits unless they can prove they were coerced or prevented from taking breaks. Plaintiffs' attorneys may also be discouraged from taking these lawsuits since they might also be barred from litigating meal and rest break violations through representative class actions.
Brinker Restaurant Corporation owns and operates a number of restaurants including Chili’s Grill & Bar, Romano’s Macaroni Grill, and Maggiano’s Little Italy. Brinker’s restaurants had written policies in place that mandated 30 minute meal periods for shifts over 5 hours and 10 minute rest breaks for shifts over 3 ½ hours. Brinker’s policies stated that failure to adhere to these policies may result in disciplinary action, including termination. Brinker came under fire based on many of its restaurants mandating the timing of their meal and rest breaks. The main argument brought by Brinker’s employees was that on many occasions, Brinker required its employees to take a meal break after the first hour of work. Employees would then work anywhere between 5 and 9 additional hours without a break. Another related issue concerned allegations that Brinker’s employees were working off-the-clock for compensation, and that Brinker was engaged in time shaving practices.
The Court’s Decision
Employers Are Not Required To Enforce Meal And Rest Breaks
In reviewing the Labor Code, the Court found that there was never a requirement for employers to police their workforce and require them to take meal and rest breaks. Instead, employers are only required to allow for such breaks and are prohibited from discouraging or dissuading employees from taking breaks. This would place the burden back on employees to prove that they were prohibited from taking breaks.
Meal Periods Not Necessarily Required At The Middle Of The Shift
The Court also held that there is no requirement that employers provide breaks every 4-5 consecutive hours worked. The Court made the determination that the Labor Code did not intend to mandate the timing of the breaks, but instead dictated the number of breaks available depending upon the total shift time.
Employees May Not Be Able To Litigate Meal & Rest Break Violations Through Class Actions
The most significant point to the Brinker decision may be that employees are no longer able to bring class action lawsuits alleging meal and rest break violations any longer unless the employer had a company-wide policy in place that prevented taking breaks. The Court recognized that without some type of adverse policy in place, violations by employers would be on a case by case basis, and too individualized to be decided on behalf of an entire class.
Employers Are Not Liable For Employees Working Off The Clock Unless They Knew Or Should Have Known
Another allegation brought through the Brinker decision concerned off-the-clock and time shaving practices. The Court determined that in order for an employee to prevail for back wages for time worked off the clock, it must be proven that the employer knew or should have known that the practice was taking place. In any event, the Court also determined that outside of a company policy, such practices were also on a case by case basis, and could not be brought through a class action lawsuit.
Future Implications
For the time being, employment law attorneys are taking a wait and see approach to determine whether this decision will stick. Another California Appellate Court will be deciding a related case in Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Regardless of the decision made in Wal-Mart, both decisions will almost certainly be appealed to California Supreme Court.
The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has paid attention to the Brinker decision and recently updated its Enforcement Policies and Procedures manual to reflect the Court’s most recent decision. However, its decision may have been a bit premature since the California Supreme Court may have the final say here.
Employers are encouraged to consult with an attorney prior to taking any action to update their employment policies and procedures.
Prior to this decision, many plaintiff’s attorneys brought class action lawsuits on behalf of an entire class of employees if employers did not take remedial measures to ensure their employees took a meal period for every 5 hours worked and a rest break for every 4 hours worked. Without much guidance as to the intention of the labor code, employers were at risk if they could not prove that they had policies in place and took action to require employees to take those breaks. Employees will no longer enjoy success in bringing meal and rest break lawsuits unless they can prove they were coerced or prevented from taking breaks. Plaintiffs' attorneys may also be discouraged from taking these lawsuits since they might also be barred from litigating meal and rest break violations through representative class actions.
Brinker Restaurant Corporation owns and operates a number of restaurants including Chili’s Grill & Bar, Romano’s Macaroni Grill, and Maggiano’s Little Italy. Brinker’s restaurants had written policies in place that mandated 30 minute meal periods for shifts over 5 hours and 10 minute rest breaks for shifts over 3 ½ hours. Brinker’s policies stated that failure to adhere to these policies may result in disciplinary action, including termination. Brinker came under fire based on many of its restaurants mandating the timing of their meal and rest breaks. The main argument brought by Brinker’s employees was that on many occasions, Brinker required its employees to take a meal break after the first hour of work. Employees would then work anywhere between 5 and 9 additional hours without a break. Another related issue concerned allegations that Brinker’s employees were working off-the-clock for compensation, and that Brinker was engaged in time shaving practices.
The Court’s Decision
Employers Are Not Required To Enforce Meal And Rest Breaks
In reviewing the Labor Code, the Court found that there was never a requirement for employers to police their workforce and require them to take meal and rest breaks. Instead, employers are only required to allow for such breaks and are prohibited from discouraging or dissuading employees from taking breaks. This would place the burden back on employees to prove that they were prohibited from taking breaks.
Meal Periods Not Necessarily Required At The Middle Of The Shift
The Court also held that there is no requirement that employers provide breaks every 4-5 consecutive hours worked. The Court made the determination that the Labor Code did not intend to mandate the timing of the breaks, but instead dictated the number of breaks available depending upon the total shift time.
Employees May Not Be Able To Litigate Meal & Rest Break Violations Through Class Actions
The most significant point to the Brinker decision may be that employees are no longer able to bring class action lawsuits alleging meal and rest break violations any longer unless the employer had a company-wide policy in place that prevented taking breaks. The Court recognized that without some type of adverse policy in place, violations by employers would be on a case by case basis, and too individualized to be decided on behalf of an entire class.
Employers Are Not Liable For Employees Working Off The Clock Unless They Knew Or Should Have Known
Another allegation brought through the Brinker decision concerned off-the-clock and time shaving practices. The Court determined that in order for an employee to prevail for back wages for time worked off the clock, it must be proven that the employer knew or should have known that the practice was taking place. In any event, the Court also determined that outside of a company policy, such practices were also on a case by case basis, and could not be brought through a class action lawsuit.
Future Implications
For the time being, employment law attorneys are taking a wait and see approach to determine whether this decision will stick. Another California Appellate Court will be deciding a related case in Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Regardless of the decision made in Wal-Mart, both decisions will almost certainly be appealed to California Supreme Court.
The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has paid attention to the Brinker decision and recently updated its Enforcement Policies and Procedures manual to reflect the Court’s most recent decision. However, its decision may have been a bit premature since the California Supreme Court may have the final say here.
Employers are encouraged to consult with an attorney prior to taking any action to update their employment policies and procedures.
Labels: brinker, CA, california, employment law, law, meal and rest law, relief for employers
posted by rekab guod