The first article, "Brinker v. Superior Court: Takeaways for California Workers," is by yours truly and is an edited and somewhat expanded version of my original post on Brinker.
The article includes two figures, the first of which was unfortunately distorted in the print copy of the Review. The figure illustrates the Supreme Court's ruling on the meal period compliance question, and should have looked like this (click to view full-size image):
As the article explains, the Supreme Court held that employers must actually relieve workers of all duty for meal periods, which is precisely what the workers argued. Petition for Review, Statement of Issues on Review (issue no. 1); see Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1017 (2012) ("an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty"). While the Supreme Court did not accept the workers' further argument, based on Martinez v. Combs, that employers must also prevent all work from occurring, the Court flatly rejected the employers' assertion that meal periods need only be "offered" to workers. Those who assert that Brinker held that meal periods need only be "made available" are not reading the opinion with adequate care.
The article is available to members of the State Bar Labor and Employment Law Section. If you would like a copy, please drop me an email.
The second article in the pair, "Brinker v. Superior Court: Implications for Employers," is by Brinker's appellate counsel, Rex Heinke, and one of his colleagues, Damien DeLaney.