The California Supreme Court has ruled that it is an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employees of all duty during meal periods, but that an employer does not need to ensure employees don’t perform work during their break. It is the employees’ choice on how to spend their meal periods.
For a Limited Time receive a
FREE Compensation Market Analysis Report! Find out how much you should be paying to attract and retain the best applicants and employees, with
customized information for your industry, location, and job.
Get Your Report Now!Background. In the fall of 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, which addressed the issue of an employer’s meal and rest break obligation. A California appeal court had held that the employer must make the meal break available and not impede, discourage, or dissuade employees from taking it. However, the court found that employers are not required to ensure that employees take breaks.
Supreme Court Decision. In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court explained that neither state statutes nor the orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) compel an employer to ensure employees are not performing work during meal periods. Instead, under state law an employer must provide its employees an uninterrupted 30-minute duty-free period during which the employee can spend as he or she pleases. Absent a statutorily permissible waiver, a meal break must be afforded after no more than five hours of work, and a second meal period provided after no more than 10 hours of work.
On the question of rest periods, the court explained that under the IWC’s orders, employees are entitled to 10 minutes of rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, and to another 10 minutes rest for shifts from six hours to 10 hours in length. Rest periods need not be timed to fall specifically before or after any meal period.
On the issue of whether rest and meal period claims can constitute a class action, the court concluded plaintiffs had identified a theory of recovery suitable for class treatment. With respect to meal period claims, the Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of class certification in light of its clarification of the substantive law governing meal period claims. Finally, with respect to claims that Brinker required off-the-clock work—the court affirmed vacation of class certification.
Source:
www.courts.ca.gov/