Q: I HEARD that the Supreme Court recently decided a case about the employer’s obligation to provide lunch breaks. Some say the employers won the case. But others say the decision favored employees. Can you clarify this issue?
A: The case you may be referring to is Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. It was one of the most-awaited cases this year on employment. We wrote about the decision back in April, but it seems there are still some lingering questions as to who won the case.
In Brinker, restaurant employees complained that the employer failed to provide employees the 30-minute meal breaks required by law and, as a result, they were entitled to one extra hour of pay. However, the employer contended that employees were provided breaks but employees chose not to take the breaks.
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.
At the heart of the controversy in the Brinker case (and indeed, on many of these meal and rest breaks cases), is the meaning of a seemingly simple term: “provide.” Does the employer “provide” if it simply tells the employees they can have a 30-minute break? Should the employer police its workplace to ensure that the employee takes the break? If employees take breaks, when should they take them? These were questions recently clarified by the California Supreme Court in the Brinker case.
In its decision, the Supreme Court guaranteed the employees rights to meal breaks. At the same time, it clarified the employer’s duties to provide meal breaks to employees. A policy that merely offers or allows a meal break is not enough. The employer must affirmatively perform these obligations:
The employer must relieve the employee of all duty for an uninterrupted period of 30 minutes
The employer must afford employees the freedom to come and go as they please during their break. Hence, they are free to leave the workplace and use their break for whatever purpose they desire.
The employer must relinquish control over the employees’ activities during the break.
The employer should not impede or discourage employees from taking their breaks
In light of these rules, the employer fails in its legal duty to provide meal breaks in the following situations:
1. The employees were not relieved of ALL duties. For example, employees are required to answer the phone or take care of work-related issues while they are on breaks.
2. Employees are required to remain on the work premises where their breaks can be interrupted, either from co-employees or customers.
3. The employer does not schedule a specific lunch break time, simply instructing employees to take a break when not busy, even though work is continuous and always busy.
The Supreme Court also required employers to provide meal periods within the 5th hour of work. Hence, employers who delay their employees’ lunches towards the end of a workday are in violation of the law. Additionally, those who work more than 10 hours in a workday must be provided with two 30-minute meal breaks, except if one of those breaks has been waived.
Employers’ attorneys hail the court ruling because employers do not have to “police” or make sure that employees take their meal periods. However, the court recognized significant worker protections by requiring employers to take the extra step of providing an off-duty meal period. Employers should not pressure or coerce employees into performing duties that omit breaks. Nor should employers create incentives that forego the taking of said breaks.
The Supreme Court recognized the importance of meal breaks for ameliorating the consequences of long work hours. Its decision guaranteed this right, which promotes the health and safety of our workers. Since the court further mandated what employers should do, and clarified that paying lip service to the law is not enough, the case is a win for our working men and women.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully obtained significant results, including several million dollar recoveries for consumers against insurance companies and big business. He is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum—a prestigious group of trial lawyers whose membership is limited to those who have demonstrated exceptional skill, experience and excellence in advocacy. He has been featured in the cover of Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Verdicts and Settlements for his professional accomplishments and recipient of numerous awards from community and media organizations. His litigation practice concentrates in the following areas: serious personal injuries, wrongful death, insurance claims, unfair business practices, wage and hour (overtime) litigation. You can visit his website at www.joesayas law.com or contact his office by telephone at (818) 291-0088.
