On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued the long awaited decision in the case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County.
The main issue in the Brinker case was the question of whether an employer merely has to provide a meal period to employees or whether an employer had to ensure that employee took a meal period. The California Supreme Court essentially decided that an employer’s obligation is to provide a meal period but not to ensure that the meal period is actually enjoyed or taken by the employee.
The Meal Period Obligation
The Supreme Court concluded that ” … an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employees of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desires, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.” As further explained by the Court, “[a]n employer’s duty with respect to meal breaks … is an obligation to provide a meal period to its employees. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so.” “… On the other hand, the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. Bona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer’s obligations …”
The Timing of the Meal Period
The Court also concluded that a meal period must begin before the end of the 6th and 10th hour of work, respectively. “We conclude that, absent a waiver, section 512 requires a first meal period no later than the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work, and a second meal period no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work.” The fact that the Court has “clarified” that a first meal period must start prior to the end of the 6th hour of work may bring forth more litigation than the appealing employers hoped to avoid.