In Brinker Restaurant Corp., v. Superior Court of San Diego County (D049331 July 2008), a California Court of Appeal ruled that employers have to provide meal and rest breaks but do not have to ensure that their employees take them. Additionally, the court ruled that employers cannot be held liable for employees working off the clock unless the employers knew or should have known the employees were doing so.

The case concerned Brinker Restaurant Corp., which operates 137 restaurants in California including Chili’s Grill & Bar, Romano’s Macaroni Grill and Maggiano’s Little Italy. Brinker maintained a written policy in a form that had to be signed by each employee which provided for meal and rest breaks. The policy stated that failure to follow the policy could lead to discipline including termination. Brinker also had a working off the clock policy that was contained in its employee handbook and it provided that working off the clock for any reason is a violation of company policy.

The plaintiffs in this case asserted three types of wage and hour violations in their complaint against Brinker. The first claim alleged that Brinker failed to provide rest periods for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked per day to non-exempt employees, and failed to give compensation for such unprovided rest periods. The second claim alleged that Brinker failed to provide meal periods for days on which non-exempt employees worked in excess of five hours, failed to provide second meal periods for days employees worked in excess of 10 hours, and failed to give compensation for such unprovided or improperly provided meal periods. Within this claim, the plaintiffs also contended that Brinker engaged in an “early lunching” program where employees were required to take their meal periods usually within the first hour of their shift and then were required to work in excess of five hours (and sometimes more than nine hours straight) without an additional meal period. The plaintiffs’ third claim alleged that Brinker unlawfully required its employees to work off the clock during meal periods and engaged in “time shaving” where employee time records were altered to reduce time logged so as to not accurately reflect time worked.

The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ claims and concluded that the evidence presented did not provide proof that Brinker had violated the law. To this end, the court determined that there was no evidence to show that employees were routinely or regularly denied meal and rest breaks, or that they were forced to work off the clock or to adjust their time cards. The court stated that Brinker’s obligation was to provide meal and rest breaks and that Brinker’s policies in this regard were consistent with this requirement.

Patricia Jeanne Howze, J.D.
Galen C. Sorrells, Esq.

After reading this issue, if you have any questions, please contact Patricia Heanne Howze at 415.435.9484 or send an email request.

Century Update is provided quarterly to provide a review of recent employment law.  It is not meant to be, and should not be considered legal advice.

Copyright© 2008 by Patricia Jeanne Howze.  All rights reserved.  Reproduction of this publication by any means without the express written permission of Patricia Jeanne Howze is prohibited.

Download the PDF version of Century Update here.