It’s a case that’s been years in the making, but the California Supreme Court has finally reached a decision in the Brinker Restaurant Corp v. Superior Court case.
The big question in the case? Does an employer have a legal responsibility to make sure that employees take their meal breaks?
The answer? No.
The California Supreme Court reached a unanimous verdict — saying that as long as the employee volunteers to work through his lunch break and is paid for his time, employers have abided by state law. The Court said that while employers are required to let their hourly employees take specific breaks during their shifts, employers are not obligated to make sure that their employees do absolutely no work during break times.
“We conclude 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 desires,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote in the unanimous decision. “But the employer need not ensure that no work is done.”
The decision goes against the argument made by the Division of Labor Standard Enforcement — the organization responsible for enforcing California’s wage and hour laws. They had argued that employers had a legal obligation to make sure that employees were totally relieved of all job-related duties during their meal periods.
However, California labor laws only say that employers have to “supply or make available” meal periods. In order to count as a “meal period” under the law, employees need to have at least 30 minutes of uninterrupted break time, during which they are free to leave the premises.
The issue originally came about when the Division of Labor Standard Enforcement said that Brinker International, Inc. wasn’t abiding by state law. Brinker is a Dallas-based company that owns several restaurant chains, including Chili’s and Maggiano’s Little Italy. The Division of Labor Standard Enforcement filed a lawsuit against Brinker, and the company eventually settled the suit for $10 million.
That wasn’t the end of Brinker’s legal troubles, though. California-based Brinker employees filed a class-action lawsuit, claiming that Brinker was violating state law by forcing them to work through their lunch breaks and refusing to pay them for their time.
The California Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling and said that employees couldn’t be forced to take a lunch break. The court also said that employers have to pay employees who choose to work through their break. However, the Court of Appeals said that employers have no obligation to make sure that employees are completely relieved of their duties while taking a break.
That’s when the case moved to the Supreme Court. Employers all over the state waited for a decision for three long years — and on April 11, 2012, they got one.
Thanks to the ruling, California employees may not file a lunch break lawsuit if they freely choose to work through their meal period, as long as they are paid for their work. Employees who choose to work through their lunch breaks will not qualify for “premium pay”. Instead, they will receive “straight pay”.
A lawyer for the hourly employees at Brinker, said they are pleased with the Supreme Court decision. “We feel that it is a very good result for California workers,” said attorney Kimberly Kralowec.