California Supreme Court Guidance on Meal & Rest Breaks

Brinker Decision Provides Guidance on Meal and Rest Breaks

The California Supreme Court has finally issued its long awaited ruling in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, finding that employers must provide but need not ensure that employees take meal periods.

It has been three and a half years since the California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Brinker, and it was well worth the wait for California employers. In its new ruling, the Supreme Court provides significant clarification regarding employee rights to meal periods and rest breaks in California, including the following:

Employers Must Provide But Not Ensure That Employees Take Meal Breaks:

Employers have an obligation to provide meal periods to employees working five or more hours, absent a written on-duty meal period agreement if circumstances permits, or absent consent to a mutually agreed upon waiver if the shift will end in less than six hours. During such meal periods, the employer must relinquish control over the employee and relieve the employee of all duties. However, the employer is “not obligated to police meal periods and ensure no work” is performed.

Meal Breaks Must Be Commenced by the End of the Fifth Hour of Work:

The Brinker Court addressed for the first time the timing of meal periods, ruling that the first meal period in a shift must start after no more than five hours. Employees that work more than ten hours must receive a second meal period that begins by the end of the tenth hour. The Court rejected the “rolling five” argument that the second meal period must occur within five hours of the first meal period.

Scheduling of Rest Breaks:

The Supreme Court further clarified the scheduling of rest breaks as follows: “Employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shifts from 3½ to 6 hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than 6 hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.” Employers must make a good faith effort to permit rest breaks to occur in the middle of each work period. However, the Supreme Court confirmed that employers have some flexibility where practical considerations may cause such rest breaks to deviate. The Supreme Court also confirmed that there is no requirement that employees receive a rest period before any meal period occurs.

Effect on Premium Pay:

Employers need not ensure that employees take a meal period, and thus employers will not owe premium pay (an extra one hour’s wage) merely because the employer had knowledge that the employee chose to work during the meal period. If an employer relinquishes control and relieves the employee of duty during a meal period, no premium pay is owed. Premium pay for meal periods will only be due if the employer fails to relinquish control, fails to relieve the employee of duty, or pressures employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks.

Effect on Class Actions:

The Brinker Court issued clarification regarding the standards for determining whether claims involving meal and/or rest breaks should proceed as class actions. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, it will be much more difficult for employees to certify a class action with respect to meal period claims, because individual questions of fact are more likely to predominate under