Employers Breathe Sigh of Relief: California Supreme Court Issues Much-Anticipated Brinker Restaurant Decision

Today the California Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant, the long-awaited case which has important implications for the workplace about whether California law (1) requires employers to “ensure” that employees take their 30-minute meal periods or merely requires that employers make meal periods “available,” (2) whether an employee is entitled to a meal period for every five hour work period (the so-called “rolling five” requirement) or only requires one meal period for each day in which the employee’s work period exceeds five hours and a second period on each day in which the employee’s work period exceeds ten hours, (3) the timing of rest breaks, and (4) the extent to which employees can bring class action lawsuits for alleged wage-and-hour violations. In the unanimous opinion issued today, the Supreme Court answered those questions as follows:

Employers Must Make Meal Periods Available By Relieving Employees of All Duty

The court held that employers must make meal periods “available” by relieving employees of all duty, but employees then have the freedom to use their meal periods for whatever purpose they desire. Relieving an employee of all duty means relinquishing all control over the employee and how he or she spends the time. Accordingly, the employer must avoid policies or practices that impede or discourage an employee’s ability to take an uninterrupted, thirty (30) minute meal period. If an employee is provided a compliant meal period, but continues to work nonetheless, the employer is not liable for premium pay. However, under these circumstances the employer may be liable for wages for the time worked if it knew or reasonably should have known that an employee was utilizing a meal period to conduct work.

Employers Need Not Provide a Meal Period Every Five Hours

The court also held that an employer is only required to provide one meal period for each day an employee is required to work more than five hours and a second meal period for each day an employee is required to work more than ten hours. The first meal period must occur within the first five hours of work (or no later than the start of an employee’s sixth hour of work), and the second meal period must occur within the first 10 hours of work. An employee is not necessarily entitled to a meal period within five hours of the prior meal period.

The Court Clarifies the Timing of Rest Periods

Under most California wage orders, “Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof. However, a rest period need not be authorized for employees whose total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3½) hours.” The court interpreted this requirement to mean that an employee need not receive a rest period for shifts of three and one-half (3½) hours or less, but employees must be authorized or permitted (a) one rest period of 10 minutes for shifts exceeding three and one-half (3½) hours and up to six hours, (b) two rest periods of ten minutes each for shifts exceeding six hours and up to 10 hours, or (c) three rest periods of ten minutes each for shifts exceeding 10 hours and up to 14 hours, and so on.

Furthermore, there is no legal requirement that an employee take a rest period before his/her first meal period, but the law does require that employers make a good faith effort to schedule rest periods in the middle of a work period “insofar as practicable.” To provide further guidance, the Court explained that as a general rule, in an eight hour shift, the rest periods should fall on either side of the meal period and an employer should also avoid placing both rest breaks before the meal period and none after the meal period.

Class Action Inappropriate for Employers With Uniform Policies and Practices that Comply With California Law

In a major victory for California employers who face wage-and-hour class actions, the court held that in the absence of a company-wide policy or practice that violates the law, a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit is an inappropriate vehicle to vindicate employee rights. In Brinker, the employees attempted to argue that they were due wages for “off-the-clock” work during their meal periods or rest periods. However, the court determined that there was no company-wide policy or practice to support a class action. To the contrary, the employer had maintained a uniform policy that complied with California’s wage-and-hour requirements, i.e., that employees could not work off the clock. But, even with a compliant company-wide policy, a company-wide practice that violates California law may potentially be litigated as a class action.

Practical Implications

The Brinker decision provides California employers more flexibility in the management of employee meal periods, but employers must still ensure that they do not have policies or practices that impede or discourage their employees’ ability to take meal periods. Employers must take steps to relieve employees of all duty for their meal periods and cannot look the other way if they know or should know that the employees are working during their meal periods.

In order to fend off possible meal period litigation before Brinker, many employers adopted strict management and disciplinary systems to require employees to take meal periods of at least 30 minutes before working five hours in a day. Employers are encouraged to enforce lawful, conservative standards as a matter of company policy – which support defenses to class action lawsuits. Managers, supervisors and employees should be trained on the company’s approach, including the importance of not impeding or discouraging meal periods. Handbooks, policies, forms and communications should also be updated accordingly.