California Employers Need Only “Provide” not “Ensure” Meal and Rest Breaks
In 2008 the California Court of Appeals issued its decision in one of the most important areas of human resources management both for California employers and employees. In Brinker v. Superior Court the Court analyzed what California Labor Code § 512 means when it requires an employer to “provide” meal and rest periods for non-exempt employees.
Brinker operates and manages about 140 restaurants and has thousands of employees. The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement investigated the corporation’s compensation practices and filed suit alleging various violations. Brinker paid $10 million to settle the DLSE lawsuit and agreed to a court-ordered injunction to ensure its compliance with California meal period and rest break laws.
Thereafter several employees filed a separate lawsuit against Brinker piggybacking their claims on the DLSE lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in damages and asking for class-action certification of their claims. The case went from the trial court all the way to the California Supreme Court and back to the Court of Appeals which analyzed Labor Code § 512 and the related Industrial Wage Commission Order No. 5.
For many years regulators and courts took the position that the term “provide” means that employers actually have to require employees to take their mandatory meal periods or be liable to the employee for one extra hour of pay. Thus employers had to police these breaks through time clock punch-out / punch-in procedures or through other means (e.g. “Meal Compliance Log”) of monitoring compliance.
Contrary to this long-standing interpretation the Court agreed with Brinker’s position that “while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ‘ensure’ they are taken.”
The Court went on to say that “public policy does not support the notion that meal breaks must be ensured. If this were the case, employers would be forced to police their employees and force them to take meal breaks. With thousands of employees working multiple shifts, this would be an impossible task. If they were unable to do so, employers would have to pay and extra hour of pay any time an employee voluntarily chose not to take a meal period, or to take a shortened one.”
This is the first time that a California Court has published a decision interpreting the meaning of the word “provide” in California Labor Code § 512. Based upon this decision, it would we worthwhile to review your current practices regarding meal breaks and rest periods and make sure that any modifications you contemplate comply with the law.