We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
My partner, labor and employment lawyer Scott Brink, has
informed us that the California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear
oral argument in a high-profile labor law case, Brinker
Restaurant v. Superior Court, on November 8, 2011. He believes
it is likely we will see a decision within the following 90
days.
The outcome could curb a wave of class action lawsuits in
California -- or provide the fuel for more of them.
At issue in the case is whether California employers must ensure
that their employees actually take their meal and rest periods or
merely make them available. Here is Scott's update.
Labor Law Update: California
Supreme Court one step closer to decision in long-awaited meal and
rest period case. Decision expected by mid-February.
by
Scott Brink | Hotel Lawyer, JMBM Global Hospitality
Group®
The California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Brinker
Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum, et al., real parties
in interest) on November 8, 2011, according to the Court docket
issued this week. The Court generally issues decisions within 90
days after completion of oral argument and submission of
post-argument briefs, if any. A decision is expected by
mid-February, 2012.
At issue in the case is whether California employers must ensure
that their employees actually take their meal and rest periods or
merely make them available. Guidance is also anticipated regarding
the time in the workday in which meal and rest periods must be
taken and whether or not legally-compliant meal and rest period
policies can protect an employer against class actions even when
these policies are unevenly enforced.
The decision is extremely important to California employers
because meal and rest period claims have been the basis of hundreds
of class action lawsuits in California. The Court's decision
could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring these claims
as class actions, or, depending on the ruling, could establish
rigid guidelines which may foster more class actions. Either way,
California employers and plaintiffs class action lawyers alike have
eagerly awaited this decision since the Supreme Court took up the
case in October 2008 and look forward to receiving guidance from
the high court.
Under California law, nonexempt employees are entitled to
uninterrupted, off-duty meal periods of at least 30 minutes for
every five hours worked. While there are certain limited exceptions
to this rule (such as a revocable written waiver of the meal period
in limited circumstances), employers are required to compensate
employees for on-duty meal periods. In addition, California law
assesses employers a penalty equal to one hour of pay at the
employee's regular rate for every day there is a meal period
violation.
The lower court in the Brinker case held that
California law requires employers only to "supply or make
available" meal periods.This view is consistent with several
Federal District Court decisions as well as the California Court of
Appeals decision in Brinkley v. Public Storage. The
California administrative entity charged with enforcing wage and
hour laws, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, takes the
position that employers have "an affirmative obligation to
ensure the workers are actually relieved of all duty" during
meal breaks. The California Supreme Courts decision in
Brinker should put this dispute to rest.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Last week, by virtue of a 63-30 procedural vote, the Senate moved forward with a bill called the Marketplace Fairness Act, with a final Senate vote set for May 6, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Corporate tweeters or bloggers – employees who post promotional and often entertaining commentary on behalf of their employers’ businesses – add much of their own personal brand – their voice, their opinions, their snarky remarks – to the information they are disseminating on the company’s behalf.
No blog can really take itself seriously unless it's written about Lindsay Lohan. Plus our Marketing Department claims she'll do wonders for our search rankings.
In a First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry released at the end of March in a proceeding begun in 2003, the Federal Communications Commission continued its comprehensive review of its rules, policies and procedures governing radiofrequency radiation and limits on exposure to human beings.
