The UCL Practitioner: Discussing an article in this morning’s Recorder, Kimberly believes this creates a split of authority with Cicairos.

Wage Law keeps its analysis short due to a new arrival in the family. Mazel tov.  Their quick take: “if this had been the first appellate decision in California concerning wage and hour class actions, there might never have been a second wage and hour class action”

Robert Nuddleman: “There are still plenty of ways an employee could claim s/he was dissuaded from taking a required break.”

Shaw Valenza: “a major decision that could bring meal and break period class actions to a screeching halt”

Kent Sprinkle: Notes the Brinker court’s reliance on federal district court opinions.

It’s worth pointing out that the Employment Law Information Network noted recently that wage and hour lawsuits have increased again this year.  The judges don’t live in a bubble aren’t aren’t immune to considerations beyond the trial transcript.

All in all, I think there’s a bit of irrational exuberance in the reaction to this case.  First of all, I can’t believe it won’t be reviewed (and therefore depublished) by the Cal Supremes.  Second of all, this doesn’t mean that (1) a follow-up court of appeal won’t accept some kind of McDonnell Douglas-Burdine like analysis of the circumstantial evidnece of non-obvious discouragement, or that (2) this is the end of wage-hour class actions.

All of this site’s commentary on Brinker throughout its history is avaialble by clicking on the “Brinker” item on the billtrack bar to the left.

UPDATE: The Governor even had a statement on this case.

Tags: brinker, wage/hour

Trackback URI | Comments RSS