Also significant here is that this is another reversal of a trial court’s supposedly broad discretion to make class certification decisions. Here the class certification was reversed. Is it going too far to wonder if Sav-On is a dead letter, both in its “pro-class” and “pro-discretion” senses?
We’ll all digest this over the coming days, but here is some of the choice language:
Furthermore, because (as the parties acknowledge) Brinker’s hourly employees
may waive their rest breaks, and thus Brinker is not obligated to ensure that its employees
take those breaks, any showing on a class basis that plaintiffs or other members of the
proposed class missed rest breaks or took shortened rest breaks would not necessarily
establish, without further individualized proof, that Brinker violated the provisions of
section 226.7, subdivision (a) and IWC Wage Order No. 5 as plaintiffs allege in their
complaint.
(Slip. Op. at 25)
They punted on the big question about whether employers must “force” meal periods, but they implied in a few places that’s where they would go:
“The term “provide” is defined in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2006) at
page 1001 as “to supply or make available.” (Italics added.)”
(Slip. Op at 30.)
In White v. Starbucks Corp. (N.D.Cal. July 2, 2007) 497 F.Supp.2d 1080
(Starbucks), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
recently concluded that, under sections 512(a) and 226.7, “the California Supreme
Court . . . would require only that an employer offer meal breaks, without forcing
employers actively to ensure that workers are taking these breaks,” and stated that “the
employee must show that he was forced to forego his meal breaks as opposed to merely
showing that he did not take them regardless of the reason.”
(Slip. Op. at 39-40)
At the end of the day, the Court didn’t address that issue, and I don’t think we’re done here. This one is unpublished. I’ll post if there are any requests for publication added to the docket.
Shaw Valenza has their take here.
My guess on why they didn’t publish this? Two reasons: (1) they think it’s going up a level anyway, or (2) they think it’s going down and back up. I can see either or both happening.
Meanwhile, unless you’ve got the coin to fight one up to the Tenderloin, keep ensuring your employees take their meal periods.
i thought the court’s rejection of the five-hour “block of time” before a meal break rule, in favor of the one meal break per five-hours-in-a-day rule was significant.
a former Labor Commissioner took the view it was illegal to have employees work longer than a five-hour block of time without a meal break; you might be able to see the old official “opinion letter” at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/opinions/2002-06-14.pdf online.
i say “might be able to see” because the opinion letter was subsequently withdrawn from the official list (i.e., first, it was “disappeared” by a later administration; for a time, it wasn’t on the “withdrawn” letter list, although now i see it is at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/OpinionLetters-Withdrawn.htm online).
so, less worry about having a meal break offset in a shift such that a more-than-five hour work period occurs without a meal break, eh? come in at 9 take lunch at 11 come back at noon and work until 6; a six hour (noon to 6) work period (one rest break), no problem.