Meal Periods and Rest Breaks

Subscribe to Meal Periods and Rest Breaks via RSS
In re Walgreen Co. Overtime Cases, 231 Cal. App. 4th 437 (2014)

The putative class members in this case moved for class certification on the theory that although Walgreens’s stated policy on meal breaks was proper, its actual practice departed from its stated policy in an illegal and class wide way. The trial court denied class certification, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding…

Godfrey v. Oakland Port Servs. Corp., 2014 WL 5439289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

Plantiffs Lavon Godfrey and Gary Gilbert initiated this class action against AB Trucking, alleging that AB did not pay its drivers for all hours worked, misclassified some drivers as non-employee trainees whom it did not pay at all, and failed to provide required meal and rest breaks. The trial court certified…

Araquistain v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 2014 WL 4227872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

Plaintiffs Ignacio Araquistain, David Page and Douglas Girouard are non-exempt, unionized employees of PG&E, which is an “electrical corporation” and a “gas corporation” within the meaning of Labor Code § 512(f)(4).  The operative collective bargaining agreement states that “shift employees and other employees whose workday consists of eight consecutive hours…

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014)

Plaintiffs in this case are loan officers for U.S. Bank (“USB”) who claim they were misclassified as exempt employees under the outside salesperson exemption. After certifying a class of 260 plaintiffs, the trial court devised a plan to determine the extent of USB’s liability to all class members by extrapolating from a random…

Commentators have quipped that class certification is so easy in California that with little effort a group of plaintiffs could certify even a ham sandwich.  In fact, as we have discussed here, we have seen a proliferation of recent appellate decisions hinging class certification on the mere existence of an employer’s uniform policy – no matter how facially lawful that policy may be or

…

As we recently reported here, there have been a number of appellate decisions ordering class certification based on the existence of an employer’s companywide policy – all while overlooking numerous individualized questions that would undoubtedly create manageability problems during trial.  On December 30, 2013, the California Court of Appeal in Johnson v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., 2013 WL 6858373 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.…

After the renowned remand from the California Supreme Court, the Hohnbaum plaintiffs in Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) sought to certify meal period claims alleging that all California employees were denied meal periods because Brinker’s corporate meal period policies were unlawful.

Plaintiffs argued that Brinker’s corporate policies were unlawful because (1) prior to 2002, it had no meal…

Bradley v. Networkers Int’l, LLC, 2012 WL 6182473 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)

The three named plaintiffs in this case were among approximately 140 skilled workers retained by Networkers to provide repair and installation services at cell sites. Each worker was required to sign a standard contract, which stated that he or she was an independent contractor rather than an employee. The purported independent contractor…

Plaintiff Rogelio Hernandez brought a putative class action lawsuit for Chipotle’s alleged failure to provide meal and rest breaks to its non-managerial employees pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226.7. The California Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1004, precluded class certification because the Labor Code only requires that employers provide, not ensure, that breaks are taken. In the context of this case, the Court held that Chipotle did not have a universal practice with regard to breaks. “Some employees declared they always missed breaks; some declared they received meal breaks but not rest breaks; one declared his meal and rest breaks were combined; some did not declare they were denied meal breaks; and others declared their breaks were delayed.” Even the Plaintiff admitted that Chipotle’s break practices varied. Concluding that class certification was inappropriate, the Court stated, “in order to prove Chipotle violated break laws, Hernandez would have to present an analysis restaurant-by-restaurant, and perhaps supervisor-by-supervisor.

Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2012 WL 3579567 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)

Rogelio Hernandez appealed from the order denying his motion for class certification and granting Chipotle’s motion to deny class certification as to his claims that Chipotle denied non-exempt employees their meal and rest breaks. Chipotle moved to deny class certification on the ground that it had met its responsibility under California…