U.S. Supreme Court
Apr. 18, 2012
Brinker and beyond: Supreme Court confirms workers’ rights to meal breaks
Brinker emphasizes the importance of workers' rights, especially low wage workers. By Fernando Flores of the egal Aid Society-Employment Law Center
Fernando Flores
Law Offices of Amy OppenheimerFernando is an attorney, workplace investigator, and high-performance coach. He conducts impartial investigations of employment complaints of alleged harassment, discrimination, retaliation, bullying, and other workplace misconduct. Fernando also conducts workplace trainings and coaching in English and Spanish. Prior to joining the Law Offices of Amy Oppenheimer, Fernando worked as a litigator and trial and appellate lawyer for the California labor commissioner. In addition, Fernando brings expertise in stress-management and emotional intelligence through his wellness business called Health and Wellness University.
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court in Brinker confirmed workers' rights to uninterrupted meal breaks. Despite claims of victory by employers, the Court made clear that employers have the duty to relieve workers of all duty so that workers are free to do whatever they choose during their breaks. Additionally, "an employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks." Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Super. Ct. (April 12, 2012).
The decision's emphasis on interpreting statutes in a manner that broadly favors employees is important in protecting the rights of workers, and in particular, low-wage workers.
The Brinker Court recognized that there are situations where employers can coerce workers or create incentives to forgo meal breaks and forbade the practice. The Court decided that in addition to relieving employees of all duty, in order to provide a bona-fide meal period, employers cannot impede, discourage, or de-incentivize workers from taking their breaks. In the context of low-wage workers, an all too common example is employers who implicitly encourage their workers to work through lunch or explicitly ask their workers to return from lunch early. Under the Brinker decision, California's low-wage workers remain protected under the applicable meal and rest break statutes and wage orders, and employers who interfere with workers' rights in these ways, whether overtly or covertly, could face liability. Additionally, the Court clarified that workers are entitled to a meal period during the first five hours of a shift and a second meal period after no more than 10 work hours.
In situations where workers are informed of a meal break policy, but they are discouraged or dissuaded from taking them, an employer would not comply with the standards required by the Supreme Court in Brinker and would be subject to liability. The key language in the Court's decision that protects workers is "bona fide relief from duty and relinquishing of control." The Court noted that whether an employer satisfies this duty will vary from industry to industry.
In relation to the timing of rest periods, the Court was very specific in its decision and protected the rights of workers. Brinker argued, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that a worker should be entitled to no more than one rest break in an eight-hour shift. The Brinker Court disagreed with this interpretation. It clarified that workers are entitled to 10 minutes of rest if scheduled for shifts between 3.5 to 6 hours, 20 minutes of rest for shifts lasting between 6 to 10 hours, and 30 minutes for shifts between 10 to 14 hours. This decision confirms that in an eight-hour shift, workers are entitled to two rest periods.
The Brinker Court also decided the very narrow issue of whether a trial court is required to decide the law applicable to a plaintiff's claims before determining whether the claims may be treated on a class-wide basis. The Brinker Court decided that for the purposes of class certification, a trial court is not required "as a threshold matter [to] always resolve any party disputes over the elements of a claim." The Court reversed the Court of Appeal's sweeping decision that individual differences precluded class certification of all meal period and rest break claims. In holding that the trial court properly certified the rest break subclass in the case, and in remanding the meal break subclass, the Court's opinion affirms that class actions are still available to vindicate meal and rest period breaks in California. <!-- Brinker and beyond: Supreme Court confirms workers? rights to meal breaks -->
Submit your own column for publication to Diana Bosetti
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com