Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Needs To Give It A “Rest”: Review Granted in Hernandez v. Chipotle

By Alden Parker on February 4, 2011
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On January 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court granted review in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (October 28, 2010) — Cal.App.4th —, 2010 WL 4244583.  The Court granted review pending its decision in Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum).   In Hernandez, previously addressed by this blog, the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order denying class certification of meal and rest period claims.  The Court of Appeal held that California employers are only required to make available meal and rest periods to employees.  As a result, the Court held that individual issues predominated over common issues.  In other words, the Court had to look at whether each individual had meal and rest periods made available to them, but independently choose not to take them. 

This recent action by the California Supreme Court grows the number of cases waiting for the decision in Brinker to five: Brinkley v. Public Storage, Bradley v. Networkers Int’l LLC, Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Brookler v. Radioshack Corp., and Hernandez v. Chipotle.  We will all just have to sit tight and patiently wait for the Court to act.

  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Organization:
    Weintraub Tobin

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo