Labor & Employment Law Blog

The California Supreme Court's recent and eagerly awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court we summarized here has received a great deal of deserved attention, but there are a number of other cases pending before the court of significance to California employers in a variety of industries. Those pending cases include the following:

Today, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court addressing employers' obligations to authorize and permit non-exempt employees to take required rest periods, employers' obligations  to provide to non-exempt employees required meal periods, and related issues concerning class action litigation of rest period claims, of meal period claims, and of "off-the-clock" work claims. While the decision does bring welcome clarity to some of the issues, we think the decision leaves unanswered the important question of precisely what an employer must do to meet its obligation to "provide" required meal periods, and we think the decision is a mixed bag for employers in some respects.

As we previously reported here, on July 22, 2008, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal  periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that ...

As we previously reported here, on July 22, 2008, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal  periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take all required meal periods. This was good news for employers and especially good news to numerous employers defending against claims of alleged meal period violations.  

As we previously reported here on November 7, 2011,  Governor Jerry Brown signed into law effective January 1, 2012, Assembly Bill 469, sponsored by State Assembly Member Sandre R Swanson (Dem. Oakland), known as the "Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011."  Effective January 1, 2012, the Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011 subjects California employers to new notice and record keeping requirements and to additional penalties for failing to comply with various provisions of the California Labor Code.  Some of the new requirements now in effect that require action on the part of affected employers are as follows: 

As we previously reported here on November 7, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law effective January 1, 2012, Assembly Bill 469, sponsored by State Assembly Member Sandre R Swanson (Dem. Oakland), known as the "Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011."  Effective January 1, 2012, the Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011 subjects California employers to new notice and record keeping requirements and to additional penalties for failing to comply with various provisions of the California Labor Code.  Some of the new requirements now in effect that require action on the part of affected employers are as follows:

As we previously reported here, on July 22, 2008, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take all required meal periods. This was good news for employers and especially good news to numerous employers defending against claims of alleged meal period violations.

As we previously reported here, on July 22, 2008, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal  periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take all required meal periods.  This was good news for employers and especially good news to numerous employers defending against claims of alleged meal period violations.

As we previously reported here, on July 22, 2008, in Brinker v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal  periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take all required meal periods.  This was good news for employers and especially good news to numerous employers defending against claims of alleged meal period violations. 

In a partially published and partially unpublished decision in Fuentes v. AutoZone, Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for alleged sexual harassment damages of $160,000.00 against the two alleged harassers and against the employer and affirmed the trial court's award of $677,025.00 in attorney's fees and $23,898.76 for a total award of $860,923.76.  The Court of Appeal rejected AutoZone's argument that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence and rejected AutoZone's argument that the attorney's fees award was inflated.