The California Supreme Court has given employers some relief in dealing with the state's strict meal and rest period rules, in a class-action lawsuit brought by a group of restaurant employees.
Employees of the Brinker Restaurant Corp., which includes Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy, and at one time included Romano's Macaroni Grill, Corner Bakery Cafe, Cozymel's Mexican Grill and On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina , filed a class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, unlawful scheduling of meal and rest periods.
California's highest court has now clarified those rules in a way that gives employers a small amount of flexibility and greater protection against lawsuits.
California wage hour regulations include these provisions dealing with meals and breaks:
• No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than 5 hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30-minute meal period, the meal period shall be counted as time worked.
• Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods (insofar as practicable in the middle of a work period) at the rate of 10 minutes net rest time per four 4 hours or major fraction thereof. No break is needed if the total work day is less than 3-1/2 hours.
• If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period (or rest period) in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period (or rest period) is not provided.
The Brinker employees claimed it was wrong to: a) schedule them for meals early in a shift, then make them work six or more hours without a meal period, b) give them two 10-minute breaks after lunch instead of one before and one after; and c) fail to pay an hour of "premium pay" when employees' meal periods were cut short.
The court held that it did not violate the law to schedule meal breaks early in the day, even if the employee had to work six or seven hours after lunch without a second meal period.
The court also held that employers need not "ensure" that employees take a full 30-minute meal, but need only "relieve the employee of duty." If the employee voluntarily cuts the meal break short, he may be entitled to be paid for the time, but not an hour of "premium pay" on top of that.
Finally, it was okay to schedule two breaks on the same side of lunch, as long as the employee got two breaks on a workday longer than 6 hours. If the workday runs over 10 hours, a third break would be due. In part of the ruling that favored employees, the court held that two ten-minute rest periods must be provided if the employee works more than 6 hours in a day, rather than the seven-and-a-half hours claimed by the employer.
Most employers find it challenging to comply with the complicated wage-hour rules, particularly in California where both federal and state rules apply. This ruling gives California employers a little protection against employees who might cut their own meals and rest periods short and then demand "premium pay" from their employer as a result.
California's rules are generally more restrictive than federal rules and contribute to the belief that California is unfriendly to business. This decision may improve that perception, if only slightly.
Storrow can be reached at [email protected]
Employees of the Brinker Restaurant Corp., which includes Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy, and at one time included Romano's Macaroni Grill, Corner Bakery Cafe, Cozymel's Mexican Grill and On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina , filed a class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, unlawful scheduling of meal and rest periods.
California's highest court has now clarified those rules in a way that gives employers a small amount of flexibility and greater protection against lawsuits.
California wage hour regulations include these provisions dealing with meals and breaks:
• No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than 5 hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30-minute meal period, the meal period shall be counted as time worked.
• Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods (insofar as practicable in the middle of a work period) at the rate of 10 minutes net rest time per four 4 hours or major fraction thereof. No break is needed if the total work day is less than 3-1/2 hours.
• If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period (or rest period) in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period (or rest period) is not provided.
The Brinker employees claimed it was wrong to: a) schedule them for meals early in a shift, then make them work six or more hours without a meal period, b) give them two 10-minute breaks after lunch instead of one before and one after; and c) fail to pay an hour of "premium pay" when employees' meal periods were cut short.
The court held that it did not violate the law to schedule meal breaks early in the day, even if the employee had to work six or seven hours after lunch without a second meal period.
The court also held that employers need not "ensure" that employees take a full 30-minute meal, but need only "relieve the employee of duty." If the employee voluntarily cuts the meal break short, he may be entitled to be paid for the time, but not an hour of "premium pay" on top of that.
Finally, it was okay to schedule two breaks on the same side of lunch, as long as the employee got two breaks on a workday longer than 6 hours. If the workday runs over 10 hours, a third break would be due. In part of the ruling that favored employees, the court held that two ten-minute rest periods must be provided if the employee works more than 6 hours in a day, rather than the seven-and-a-half hours claimed by the employer.
Most employers find it challenging to comply with the complicated wage-hour rules, particularly in California where both federal and state rules apply. This ruling gives California employers a little protection against employees who might cut their own meals and rest periods short and then demand "premium pay" from their employer as a result.
California's rules are generally more restrictive than federal rules and contribute to the belief that California is unfriendly to business. This decision may improve that perception, if only slightly.
Storrow can be reached at [email protected]