Labor Employment Law Blog

By Aaron W. Heisler

On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the long-awaited case of Brinker v. Superior Court (Sup. Ct. Case No. S166350). The case raised a variety of highly litigated and highly contested issues, including: (1) the scope of an employer's meal period obligations to employees; (2) the scope of an employer's rest period obligations to employees; and (3) whether a trial court must or may determine the elements of a plaintiff's claim before deciding whether the claim may proceed on a class-wide basis. While the oral argument briefly addressed issues (2) and (3), it is unsurprising that the bulk of argument pertained to question (1).

On May 10, 2011, the Second Appellate District of California issued a favorable decision for employers in Flores v. Lamps Plus, Inc. This case serves as additional support that so long as California employers provide meal and rest breaks to employees, they have met their obligations as set forth in California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the IWC Wage Orders.

In a decision recently certified for publication, Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., (October 28, 2010) __ Cal.App.4th __, 2010 WL 4244583, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting Chipotle's motion to deny class certification and denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Chipotle is represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton in the litigation.

In Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties, the California Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict which awarded $195,000 in punitive damages to a former employee who sued for various violations of the Labor Code.

On October 28, 2008, only six days after the California Supreme Court's decision to review Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court of San Diego, a different California Court of Appeal reached the same conclusions about an employer's obligation to provide meal and rest periods.  In Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc., a class of plaintiffs sued their employer alleging, among other things, that the company had failed to provide adequate meal and rest periods.

On October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the closely followed case of Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court of San Diego.  Brinker addressed compliance issues under California law relating to meal periods, rest periods, and off-the-clock work, as well as procedural issues raised in class action lawsuits based on these type of claims.

In what is a major victory for California employers, the California Court of Appeal held yesterday in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) that employers are not obligated to ensure that employees actually take meal and rest breaks, and that companies therefore cannot be held liable for alleged meal and rest break violations unless employees are "forced to forgo" these breaks.

In a decision of great interest to California employers, the California Supreme Court yesterday agreed to settle the dispute among California's Courts of Appeal regarding whether the "payment" of one hour's pay at the employee's usual rate for a missed meal and/or break period mandated by California Labor Code §226.7 is a "wage" subject to a three- or four- year statute of limitations or a "penalty" subject to a shorter one-year statute of limitations.

In December of 2004, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") proposed significant regulations regarding the state meal period requirements. The regulations were designed to interpret the rules contained in the Labor Code and to provide guidance to employees and employers. They were also designed to offer employees greater flexibility with respect to meal periods. Following public comment and hearings, the DLSE revised its proposed regulations several times.

On Thursday, a California jury awarded $172 million to 116,000 current and former employees of Wal-Mart based on violations of California's meal period rules. The verdict included $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages. Although the award may be vulnerable and is likely to be appealed, it will undoubtedly lead to even more wage-hour litigation and challenges. All California employers should understand the message the verdict is intended to send.

In the recently decided case of Valles v. Ivy Hill Corporation, two union employees sued their employer for not providing meal and rest periods in accordance with California law. The collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer provided that employees would be provided off-duty meal periods; and, that if they were required to work during their meal period they would be paid time and one half. The employer often required the employees to work through their meal periods, but paid them only regular time.