This article analyzes the implications of the Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. The Superior Court of San Diego County case for California employers regarding meal and rest break compliance.
Key points:
1. The Brinker decision changed interpretations of California labor law, giving employers more flexibility in meal and rest break implementation.
2. Major changes include:
- Employers need only provide, not ensure, that breaks are taken
- Rest breaks don't need to occur mid-shift
- Meal periods aren't required every five consecutive hours
- Employers aren't liable for off-the-clock work unless they knew/should have known
- Individual circumstances may make class action certification more difficult
3. The article recommends caution, as the case may be reviewed by the California Supreme Court.
4. Suggested actions for employers to lower risk include:
- Implementing clear policies
- Using accurate timekeeping systems
- Conducting independent audits
- Establishing consistent discipline policies
- Ensuring sufficient staffing for breaks
- Redesigning jobs to remove break disincentives
5. The importance of management practices in executing policies is emphasized.
6. The article concludes that regardless of state laws, effective meal and rest break compliance can be achieved with the right systems, tools, and commitment.
