We’ve been waiting (forever it seems) for the California Supreme Court to issue its decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. Based on oral argument last month, things look relatively promising for employers who’ve taken the position that they’re only required to make meal periods available to employees (as opposed to ensuring that they actually take them).
But another issue is lurking out there and, recognizing its significance, the Court has taken the unusual step of accepting briefing on an issue after the case was argued. The issue involves how to interpret the requirement in the wage orders that “no employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal break of not less than 30 minutes . . . .” [Let’s ignore for now the exception for work that’s completed in six hours.]
Most employers and their lawyers (and commentators and just about everyone else who’s addressed the issue) interpret that to mean that employees who work more than 5 hours get a meal period and employees who work more than 10 hours get a second meal period. But an issue arose at the Brinker argument about whether an employee can ever be required to work more than five consecutive hours without a meal period.
Take the example of an employee who works from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. with a 30-minute meal period from 11:30 a.m. to noon. Let’s assume that the employee occasionally works 10 minutes past 5 p.m., for which the employer properly pays overtime. The Brinker plaintiffs are arguing that the employee worked a period of over 5 hours (noon to 5:10 p.m.) and is therefore entitled to a second meal period. If the employer, like the overwhelming majority, didn’t provide a second meal period in that situation, the the employee would be entitled to a one-hour penalty for each occasion when that occurred.
This so-called “rolling 5” interpretation is the subject of the post-hearing briefing in Brinker. As reported by Ben James in Employment Law 360, the California Employment Law Council sought and obtained permission to file a brief on the issue. In doing so, it warns that “a tsunami of massive class actions will descend on California’s already hard-pressed employers” if the Court adopts such an interpretation and makes it retroactive.
The plaintiffs will also get a chance to brief the issue. Eventually, in theory, we’ll get a decision. But until then, the uncertainty that affects thousands of employers and hundreds of pending cases remains.