Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court

Facts

Adam Hohnbaum and other hourly, nonexempt restaurant employees sued Brinker Restaurant Corporation (operator of Chili’s and other chains) alleging that Brinker failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods and required off-the-clock work. (53 Cal.4th at pp. 1017–1018.) The plaintiffs moved to certify classes of employees for the meal-period, rest-period, and off-the-clock theories. (Ibid.) The central legal disputes were what an employer must do to satisfy its meal- and rest-period obligations, when those breaks must be provided, and whether the claims could be adjudicated on a classwide basis. (Id. at pp. 1017–1019.)

Procedural history

The trial court certified the classes; the Court of Appeal reversed in part, concluding that the substantive standards had to be resolved before certification. (53 Cal.4th at pp. 1017–1018.) The Supreme Court granted review to settle the meaning of the meal- and rest-period obligations and the proper certification approach. (Ibid.) It affirmed certification of the rest-period subclass, reversed and remanded the meal-period subclass for reconsideration under the correct legal standard, and affirmed as to the off-the-clock subclass. (Id. at pp. 1017, 1051–1052.)

Issue

What must an employer do to “provide” a meal period — must it ensure the employee performs no work, or only relieve the employee of duty? When must meal and rest periods be provided, and how many are owed? And how should courts approach class certification of meal-, rest-, and off-the-clock claims? (53 Cal.4th at pp. 1017–1019.)

Holding

Reasoning

1. Provide, not ensure (meal periods). Construing Labor Code section 512 and Wage Order No. 5, the Court rejected the argument that employers must ensure employees take meal breaks and do no work. (53 Cal.4th at pp. 1034–1040.) The statutory duty is to provide the break — to make it available by relieving the employee of all duty and relinquishing control over how the employee spends the time. (Ibid.) “An employer’s duty . . . is an obligation to provide an off duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30-minute period during which the employee is relieved of all duty.” (Id. at p. 1036.) The employee must be free to use the time as he or she chooses, including leaving the premises. (Ibid.)

2. The limits of “provide.” The Court was careful: an employer cannot “undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks.” (53 Cal.4th at pp. 1040–1041.) But “[b]ona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer’s obligations, and work by a relieved employee during a meal break does not” by itself establish a violation. (Id. at p. 1040.) Whether the employee was relieved is the question; voluntary work during a properly provided break does not trigger premium pay (though the time, if worked, must be compensated). (Ibid.)

3. Timing of meal periods. The Court held that section 512, subdivision (a), “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” tenth hour. (53 Cal.4th at pp. 1041–1049.) It rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed “rolling five-hour” rule that would require a meal period in each consecutive five-hour block; the statute prescribes timing by reference to total hours worked, not a recurring five-hour cycle. (Ibid.)

4. Number and timing of rest periods. Construing Wage Order No. 5, the Court held employees are entitled to 10 minutes of rest per four hours worked “or major fraction thereof,” with a “major fraction” meaning any amount of time more than two hours. (53 Cal.4th at pp. 1028–1033.) Operationally: “[e]mployees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours,” and 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 up to 14 hours. (Id. at pp. 1029.) Rest breaks should fall, “insofar as practicable,” in the middle of each work period. (Id. at pp. 1031–1032.)

5. Class certification. On certification, the Court emphasized that trial courts may need to resolve threshold legal questions to assess whether common issues predominate, but should not decide the merits. (53 Cal.4th at pp. 1021–1025.) Applying the corrected standards: the rest-period subclass was properly certified because Brinker’s uniform policy could be tested classwide; the meal-period subclass required reconsideration under the “provide” standard; and the off-the-clock subclass lacked common proof of a uniform policy requiring off-the-clock work. (Id. at pp. 1033, 1049–1052.) Justice Werdegar, joined by Justice Liu, concurred to address how employers’ records and the “provide” standard bear on classwide proof and any presumption arising from missing meal periods. (Id. at pp. 1052 et seq. (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.).)

Significance

Brinker is the foundational California decision on meal and rest periods and one of the most consequential wage-and-hour rulings of the era. Its “provide, not ensure” standard, the timing rules for meal periods (no rolling-five requirement), and the rest-period accrual formula govern compliance and litigation statewide and are reflected in the wage orders’ enforcement and the standard jury instructions. It also reshaped wage-and-hour class certification by confirming that courts may resolve threshold legal questions and that uniform employer policies are amenable to common proof. The decision interlocks with Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094 (the premium is a wage), Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257 (rest periods must be off-duty and off-call), Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 (no rounding of meal punches; rebuttable presumption from records), and Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (premium-pay derivative remedies). It remains the first authority in any meal/rest dispute. See the Review’s coverage of the wage-and-hour line.

Key quotes

An employer “must relieve the employee of all duty for the designated period, but need not ensure” no work is performed. (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1034.)

The duty “is an obligation to provide an off duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30-minute period during which the employee is relieved of all duty.” (Id. at p. 1036.)

“Bona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer’s obligations, and work by a relieved employee during a meal break does not” itself violate the law. (Id. at p. 1040.)

Read the full opinion (California Supreme Court — full text) →

Practice pointer

Open questions

How far an employer’s obligation extends before “providing” shades into a duty to “ensure” — e.g., when scheduling, workload, or culture predictably prevents breaks — continues to be litigated. Open questions include the precise operation of the Donohue records presumption at certification and trial, the treatment of short or interrupted breaks, and how Brinker’s standards apply to on-premises or on-call meal arrangements after Augustus.