Brinker Certification Reversed

An opinion was issued today in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) (4th Dist. No. D049331), regarding meal and rest period criteria and class certification. It isn't yet on the court's website, but here is the holding:

We conclude that the class certification order is erroneous and must be vacated because (1) the order rests on improper criteria and incorrect assumptions with respect to the rest break claims, and the court abused its discretion in finding that those claims are amenable to class treatment; (2) the court's "rolling five-hour" meal period ruling in its July 2005 order was erroneous, and thus the class certification order rests on improper criteria with respect to the rolling five-hour meal period claims; (3) the class certification order rests on an incorrect assumption with respect to the meal period claims to the extent those claims are based on the theory that Brinker had a duty to ensure that its hourly employees took the meal periods it provided to them, and thus the court abused its discretion in finding that these claims are amenable to class treatment; and (4) the court incorrectly assumed it did not have to examine the elements of plaintiffs' "off-the-clock" claims, and thus abused its discretion by finding without such an examination that those claims are amenable to class treatment. Accordingly, we order that a peremptory writ shall issue with directions that the superior court vacate its order granting class certification.
...
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its July 6, 2006 class certification order, enter a new order denying with prejudice certification of the proposed rest break subclass, and denying without prejudice certification of the proposed meal period and off the clock subclasses. The matter is remanded with directions that the court examine and consider the elements of plaintiffs' meal period and off the clock claims, including the issue of whether Brinker had a duty under section 512(a) and IWC Wage Order No. 5 to ensure that its hourly employees actually took the meal periods it provided to them. The stay issued on December 7, 2006, is vacated. Brinker is entitled to its own costs in this writ proceeding. This opinion is made final immediately as to this court.

The opinion is unpublished.

[Update: The opinion is on the website now in pdf and word format.]

Comments

[B. F. King]

Even though it is unpublished, I am slightly troubled by the contradictions in this opinion.

On one hand, the court acknowledges that a class certification determination must focus on the proponent's theory of liability. On the other hand, the court disregards plaintiff's theory that an employer has an obligation to ensure that meal breaks are taken.

By sending the matter back for a determination on the primary legal issue of liability, this case further blurs the already amorphous distinction between class certification and summary judgment.

[BP]

All I can say is UNBELIEVABLE!

In denouncing the trial court's "rolling 5-hour meal period" ruling, the Court of Appeal has openly sanctioned the practice of early lunching:

1.) Working an employee 15-30 minutes (e.g., 8:00am - 8:30am),

2.) Sending the employee on a 30-minute lunch break (e.g., 8:30am- 9:00am), and then

3.) Forcing the employee to work up to 9.5 hours straight (e.g., 9:00am - 6:30pm) with no additional meal break.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what our legislators had in mind when they enacted LC 512.

[kent]

i'm with BP.

i thought the court’s rejection of the five-hour “block of time” before a meal break rule, in favor of the one meal break per five-hours-in-a-day rule was significant.

a former Labor Commissioner took the view it was illegal to have employees work longer than a five-hour block of time without a meal break; however, a more recent Labor Commissioner withdrew the old “opinion letter” (although it's withdrawn, you can still see it at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/opinions/2002-06-14.pdf online).

[DS]

Just fyi - the Annual Hospitality Law Conference features a presentation entitled "Special Employment Issues in California and Other 'Interesting' Jurisdictions." California employers seem to be more susceptible to lawsuits, labor campaigns and wage and hour complaints. This presentation will examine the realities of managing and developing hotels and restaurants in California and how events in California can be a barometer for what is likely to be adopted in other states.

Check out www.hospitalitylawyer.com for more info.