California’s meal and rest period requirements: the debate “wages” on
October, 2008
In July, 2008, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District issued the long-awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court ("Brinker") (case number D049331). The employees in Brinker claimed that they had not been provided with all meal and rest periods, as required by California law. The claim was based, in part, on the fact that the employer had not ensured that all meal and rest periods were taken, and that meal and rest periods had been missed. The Court of Appeal held that "while employers cannot impede, discourage, or dissuade employees from taking" meal and rest breaks, "they need only provide, not ensure" that those breaks are taken. The Court's holding allowed employers to breathe a sigh of relief that they would not be required to police their workforce in order to guarantee that all meal and rest periods were taken.
However, on October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted the employee's petition for review of the Court of Appeal's decision (case number S166350). As a result, employers remain unsure of their obligations regarding meal and rest periods: is making them available enough, or do employer's need to take affirmative steps to ensure that meal and rest periods are taken? Employers will get an answer when the Supreme Court renders its decision.
In the meantime, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District has weighed in on the subject in Brinkley v. Public Storage (10/28/08, case number B200513). Like the Brinker Court, the Brinkley Court held that an employer's obligation is to provide the meal and rest periods, and not interfere with an employee's ability to take such breaks. The Court further held that an employer is not required to scrutinize each employee's conduct with regard to whether and when meal and rest breaks were taken. This decision will, no doubt, be appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Following the California Supreme Court's decision to review the holdings in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, employers are left in a state of limbo regarding the extent of their obligations to provide meal and rest breaks. As such, employers should continue to ensure that they are not impeding, discouraging or dissuading employees from taking their meal and rest periods, and work diligently to make sure that employees are taking those meal and rest periods.