Meal Periods and Rest Breaks

Subscribe to Meal Periods and Rest Breaks via RSS

The California Supreme Court issued its decision yesterday in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827, 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3981 (April 30, 2012), holding that attorney’s fees may not be awarded under Cal. Lab. Code § 218.5 to a party that prevails on a claim for meal and rest break violations. Section 218.5 provides that attorney’s fees are to be awarded to the prevailing…

Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012)

In this long-awaited opinion, the California Supreme Court determined several important issues of law regarding meal and rest breaks. First and foremost, the Supreme Court determined that “an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he…

This morning, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. Taking up two crucial issues that have spawned dozens of class action suits across the state, the Court answered the questions: (1) must an employer merely provide a meal break to employees or must it ensure that its employees actually take such breaks, and (2) when during the workday must meal and rest breaks be taken and how many must be provided?

With respect to the first issue of what “providing the employee with a meal period” means, the Court concluded that “an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desired, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.”

Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1112 (2012)

Leander Thurman sued Bayshore for alleged violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) and the Unfair Competition Law and, following a bench trial, a judgment was entered imposing civil penalties, including unpaid wages, against Bayshore in the total amount of $358,588 and awarding Thurman restitution in the amount of…

Pirjada v. Superior Court, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1074 (2011)

Putative class representative Obaidul H. Pirjada filed a complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class of all security guards who had been employed in California by Pacific National Security, Inc. during the preceding four years. The complaint alleged a failure to provide meal-and-rest periods and various other wage-and-hour violations as well as…

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments in the landmark wage-and-hour case Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court on November 8 in San Francisco. In Brinker, the Court will decide whether employers must merely provide meal and rest breaks to their employees or actually ensure that breaks are taken, as well as the related issue of whether such claims are…

Plancich v. UPS, Inc., 198 Cal. App. 4th 308 (2011)

Larry Plancich sued UPS for failure to pay overtime, meal and rest breaks; failure to keep, maintain and furnish accurate wage statements, and unfair competition, among other claims. The trial court ruled in favor of UPS on the unfair competition claim and a jury found in favor of UPS on the remaining claims. The…

United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1043 (2011)

Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(b), “[i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period… the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.”…

Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 623 F.3d 743 (2010)

Plaintiffs (reporters for the Chinese Daily News) alleged they were non-exempt employees entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the reporters, finding journalists are not subject to the creative professional exemption to the FLSA or California law. The…

Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 189 Cal.App.4th 751 (2010)

Rogelio Hernandez worked as a non-exempt employee at Chipotle Mexican Grill. In this putative class action, Hernandez alleged that Chipotle violated California wage and hour law by failing to ensure that its employees took their meal breaks. The trial court granted Chipotle’s motion to deny class certification and to strike the class allegations on…