Top Appellate Reversals -- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court

Usually, when a case goes before the state Supreme Court, the justices are deciding on one distinct issue. Not so in the mammoth case Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, which dealt with five different aspects of the contentious issue of meal and rest breaks.

Perhaps it's a testament to Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, who wrote the unanimous decision, that lawyers on both sides of the case claim victory. And to be sure, the court's decision gave each side something to cheer about. The decision green-lighted class actions against employers that do not actively relieve workers of all of their duties, but also significantly limited what kinds of claims those employees can make. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012).

On the biggest issue - whether California businesses have to ensure that employees take their breaks - the court sided with defendant, Brinker International Corp. It ruled employers cannot be held liable if employees decide to work during their breaks, a relief to many businesses statewide. The court also said companies must schedule at least one meal break in each shift of 10 hours or less, rather than a meal break every five hours, as plaintiffs sought.

The prospective class action against the restaurant chain on behalf of about 60,000 current and former employees alleged they were not provided proper meal and rest breaks. Rex S. Heinke, Brinker's lead attorney, said he deliberately adopted a nuanced strategy. He did not argue employers could do no wrong, nor did he advocate that businesses would go bankrupt if the court ruled against his client.

"We don't argue the sky is falling, that no employer can do business in California any longer," said Heinke, a partner with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. "I just don't think that argument works very well to persuade the people you are trying to persuade who aren't committed to one side or another."

Tracee Lorens of Lorens & Associates APLC, who co-argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, rejects the notion that Brinker was a loss. The issue in dispute, she said, was whether employers can nominally provide meal and rest breaks but give their workers so much work they cannot take a break. On that issue, she says, plaintiffs won. The court made clear that employers can't discourage employees from taking a break or provide incentives for them to skip it.

Brinker is still facing a massive putative class action, which is in the discovery phase. Lorens said the scope of the proposed class may have to change in light of the court's ruling, but she expressed confidence it would be approved. Heinke, on the other hand, said he believes the Supreme Court's Brinker decision will serve as the lawsuit's "death knell."

- EMILY GREEN

<!-- Top Appellate Reversals -- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court -->