One of
the most widely-followed labor and employment cases of the last decade finally
reached a conclusion a few weeks ago. In
the case of Brinker Restaurant
Corporation v. Superior Court of San Diego, the California Supreme Court
handed down a landmark decision concerning meal and rest breaks. Below is a summary of the key points from the
Brinker decision.
Rest Periods
The Court held that employees are entitled to 10
minutes of rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20
minutes of rest for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, and 30
minutes for shifts of more than 10 to 14 hours.
Regarding the timing of the rest breaks, the Court
rejected the suggestion that employers have a “legal duty” under “to permit
their employees a rest period before any meal period.” Instead, the Court
found that employers are “subject to 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 make it
infeasible.”
Meal Periods
Regarding
the timing of meal breaks, the Court looked to the language of Labor Code
section 512(a), holding that, absent a waiver by the employee, “employees are
entitled to a first meal period no later than the end of an employee’s fifth
hour of work and a second meal period no later than the end of an employee’s
10th hour of work.”
There is NO requirement that an employer
ensure work is not being performed
The plaintiff in the Brinker case argued that employers were required to “ensure” that
work ceases for the 30 minute meal period. The Court did not agree.
Using Wage Order No. 5 and Labor Code section 512(a) as a guide, the Court held
that an employer must “relieve” the employee of work, “but need not ensure that
the employee does no work.” The Court used the following analysis:
“An
employer’s duty with respect to meal breaks…is an obligation to provide a meal
period to its employees. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves
its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and
permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break,
and does not impede or discourage them from doing so. What will suffice may
vary from industry to industry…
On
the other hand, the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure
no work thereafter is performed…[R]elief from duty and the relinquishing of
control satisfies the employer’s obligations, and work by a relieved employee
during a meal break does not…place the employer in violation of its
obligations…”
Employers have waited years for this decision. The Brinker
case provides much-needed clarification on an issue relevant to virtually all
employers in California. Employers state-wide can now breathe a small
sigh of relief, knowing that they are not required to police meal breaks. Instead, employers must (1) relieve employees
of their duties, (2) relinquish control over employees’ activities, (3) permit
employees a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break,
and (4) not discourage employees from doing so.
