Give me a break . . . or $56.5 Million!

(Ten-year meal & rest breaks case is a win for employees)
IN 2004, five employees of the restaurant, Chili’s, filed a claim against their employer claiming that they were illegally denied meal and rest breaks. The employees claimed that the restaurant regularly told its employees to take early lunches, often right after starting work, and the employees would keep working for up to ten hours without receiving another meal break. Employees also worked while supposedly on their lunch break. Additionally, they claimed that they were not provided a rest break before the first meal period.
Chili’s is owned by the Brinker Restaurant Corporation, which also owned the Italian restaurant chain Maggiano’s Little Italy. Between these two restaurants, they had over 100,000 employees. The employer argued that it had written policies authorizing meal and rest periods for employees. However, employees chose not to take breaks and continued to work during their breaks.
The case was intensively litigated for 10 years, having reached all the way to the California Supreme Court. It is, perhaps, one of the most anticipated cases by the time the high court issued its decision in 2012.
Under California law, a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period must be provided to employees for every 5 hours of work. If an employer fails to provide a meal period, the employee shall be paid an extra hour of pay. In the Brinker case, the meaning of the term “provide” was the main problem.  Does the employer “provide” if it simply tells employees they can have a 30-minute break? Should the employer police its workplace to ensure that employees take the break? These were questions the high court had to address.
The Supreme Court ruled that merely offering or allowing a meal break is not enough. The employer must affirmatively perform these obligations:
– Relieve the employee of all duty for an uninterrupted period of 30 minutes
– Afford employees the freedom to come and go as they please during their break.  Employees must be free to leave the workplace during breaks.
– Relinquish control over the employees’ activities during the break.
– Employees should not be impeded or discouraged from taking their breaks
The ruling meant that employers do not have to “police” or make sure that employees take their meal breaks. However, employers must provide an off-duty meal period. Moreover, employers should not coerce employees into performing duties that omit breaks. Nor should employers create incentives that forego the taking of said breaks.
However, even after the Supreme Court’s decision, the Brinker case did not end. The decision essentially only allowed the employees to make their claims as a class. The employees then had to go back to the trial court so that the case can be tried as a class action.
Two years after the Supreme Court decision, the Brinker case was finally resolved. Rather than proceed to trial, the parties agreed to settle the case for about $56.5 million.
Even with the lessons of the Brinker case, some employees continue to suffer the illegal denial of meal and rest periods at work. Because these are important rights that impact the health and safety of our workers, those who are denied their breaks and corresponding wages should consult an experienced employment attorney to discuss their options.

***

The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost.  Atty. Sayas’ Law Office is located at 500 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 980, Glendale, CA 91203. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit  www.joesayaslaw.com. 

***

C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is trial attorney who has obtained several million dollar recoveries for his clients against employers and insurance companies. He has been selected as a Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, featured in the cover of Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Verdicts and Settlements, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.