The eagerly-awaited Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, No. D049331 (July 22, 2008) decision on California meal and rest periods is out, and the news is encouraging for employers.

The court decided that the lower court should have considered this legal framework in evaluating whether or not to certify the class. Based on its own analysis of the issues within this legal framework, the court held that a class should not be certified because the reason an employee did not take any particular meal or rest period, or worked more hours than he or she was paid for requires individual inquiry.

A group of hourly, nonexempt restaurant employees brought a class action against Brinker Restaurants. They claimed the company failed to provide them with meal and rest periods. They specifically challenged the company's practice of having employees take "early lunches shortly after starting work and then work another five to ten additional hours without receiving another meal period. They also claimed that they should have received a rest break before the first meal break. Finally, they argued they worked "off the clock during meal periods without pay.




Click here for the entire article.