Here are links to some of the press coverage. Some the press reports are misconstruing the opinion. I recommend reading the opinion rather than relying on headlines:
"Brinker a win for employers, but plaintiffs cheering, too" (The Recorder) (This article says that "the court ruled that employers need only permit meal breaks for employees." That is a misreading of the opinion. Employers must not merely "permit" meal periods but must also take action to relieve workers of all duty, relinquish control over their activities, and create bona fide and uninterrupted breaks, without doing anything to interfere with breaks as in Cicairos. Slip op. at, e.g., 36. In other words, employers must take almost all of the affirmative steps that we advanced. The opinion places a significantly greater burden on employers than "offer" or "make available," the standard the employers advanced and that was adopted by the Court of Appeal below and in federal district court decisions like Brown and Starbucks. The only step the employer need not take, according to the Court, is to "prohibit work.")
"Workers' class action against Brinker can proceed, in part" (Reuters)
"California employers must give workers breaks, court rules" (Bloomberg)
"California employers must provide meal breaks, court says" (Wall Street Journal Law Blog)
"State high court rules workers get half-hour break" (San Francisco Chronicle)
"Restaurants must give employees breaks every five hours, state supreme court rules" (SF Weekly)
"California Supreme Court: It's not the boss's problem if employees work during breaks" (San Jose Mercury News) (See my comments above.)
"Employers not liable if workers skip breaks" (Los Angeles Times) (Again, that does not capture the opinion, which plainly held that employers must relieve workers of all duty for their meal periods, and that employers are liable if they don't -- which is precisely what we argued.)
"California businesses relieved by ruling on workplace breaks" (Ventura County Star)
Comments