On April 12, 2012 the California Supreme Court has finally ruled on the long awaited and anticipated decision in Brinker v. Superior Court regarding the obligations of an employer to ensure or simply provide meals and rest breaks for their employees. Other issues addressed were the timing of the meal period and providing the 10 minute rest breaks to employees. If you would like a copy of the Court’s ruling, you can download a PDF version at the following website:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S166350.PDF
The Court ruled unanimously and the decision is mostly favorable for employers.
QUICK OVERVIEW:
-
Duty Free Meal Breaks need to be provided to employees; employers do not have to “ensure” that the employee performs no work;
-
Meal Periods must be taken by the end of the 5th hour of work if the shift is 6 or more hours;
-
Employers cannot encourage an employee to work through their meal period;
-
Employers have an obligation “to make a good faith effort to authorize and permit rest breaks in the middle of each work period, but may deviate from that preferred course where practical considerations render it infeasible;”
-
Rest Breaks do not have to occur prior to a meal break.
Below is a discussion of the key points from the decision:
Meal Breaks:
Employer’s Obligation to Relieve Employees of Duty – Not “Ensure” No Work Is Performed.
The California Supreme Court held that an employer must relieve employees of all duty during their meal period. The Court specifically stated: “….On the most contentious of these [issues]….we conclude an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desires, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.”
If an employee, on their own, decides to continue to perform any duties during what is supposed to be their off duty meal period, the employer is not liable to pay the employee for the meal period, nor the one hour premium pay (as a penalty). The Court made it clear that the premium pay is not owed if the employer relinquishes control over the employee by providing the opportunity to take a meal period even if the employee continues to work.
However, if an employer does anything to encourage the employee to perform work during the meal break or otherwise takes action which precludes or denies the employee the opportunity of taking a 30 minute duty free meal break, the employer may then be liable for failing to provide the required meal break and the penalty payment would be likely.
When Must Meal Breaks Be Taken.
The decision stated that the meal breaks must be provided within the first five hours of work, which is in accordance with a strict interpretation of the California Wage Orders. California law requires a meal break to be provided at or before the end of the fifth hour of work, unless the employee’s shift is no more than 6 hours and the employee has waived the meal break.
Based on this interpretation, the first meal period, in a shift lasting 6 or more hours, must be provided no later than the end of the employee’s fifth hour of work. If the employee is scheduled to work in excess of 10 hours, a second meal period would need to be provided no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Plaintiff’s claim that employees were entitled to a meal period every 5 hours of work – or a rolling 5 hour period. Under this theory, if the meal period was taken in the 3rd hour of work, a 2nd meal period would be owed by the 8th hour of work.
Rest Breaks:
When Are Breaks to Be Provided.
The issue before the Court was the language which provides that a break must be provided for every 4 hours or work or “major fraction” of a four-hour work period. The Court determined that a “major fraction” is when the employee is working more than two hours over and above the prior four-hour work period. Specifically, the Court stated: “Employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shifts from three and one-half (3.5) to six hours (6) in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.”
For example, under this interpretation, an employee who works 3.5 hours or less is entitled to no rest break; but, an employee who works between 3.5 to 6 hours is entitled to one 10-minute rest break . If the employee is scheduled to work an 8 hour day, and up to 10 hours, the employee would be entitled to a second 10-minute rest break. A third rest break would be required for an employee who works between 10 and 14 hours.
The Court stated that employers have a duty “to make a good faith effort to authorize and permit rest breaks in the middle of each work period, but may deviate from that preferred course where practical considerations render it infeasible.”
The Court also did not agree with the Plaintiff’s argument that in all situations the rest period must be provided before the meal period. The Court found that the only requirement as to the timing of rest breaks is that they be authorized and permitted to be taken as close to the middle of a four hour work period as is practicable. The Court rejected a strict rule that a rest break occur before a meal break.
Class Action Certification of Meal & Break Claims:
The Plaintiff brought these claims on a class action basis and much of the decision addressed whether or not a class could be certified for meal and rest break claims. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision as to the rest break claim, but sent the matter back to the trial court on the issue of whether the meal break claim could be class certified taking into consideration the Court’s ruling, which clarified the law on the timing of meal breaks.
As a result, these types of lawsuits should be more difficult to certify as a class because there will be individual questions of fact as to whether or not any of the “class” of employees has or has not voluntarily chosen to take a meal or rest break. Assuming an employer has the proper policies in place and does nothing to interfere or discourage a meal or rest break, each employees situation would or could be different.
What This All Means:
The Court’s ruling has now made it clear that employers:
-
Must make an off-duty meal period available and not ensure that it is taken by the employee;
-
Must do no more than authorize and permit rest breaks; and,
-
Class Certification is more difficult.
Effective Immediately:
The interpretation of law as set forth in the Court’s decision was not issued on a prospective basis. Employers should therefore immediately review their meal period and rest break policies and make any modifications necessary to reflect the Brinker court’s rulings and train their managers and employees about the meal period and rest break policies.