Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


California employers don’t have to force meal breaks

Recent case sides with employer in meal-break suit

For years, employment litigation in California has been fodder for discussions among lawyers. The state’s laws tend to favor employees in many areas of labor and employment law. But a recent decision in a California meal-break case gave employers some relief.

Several employees of concrete company Granite Rock had filed suit against their employer claiming Granite Rock did not provide them adequate meal breaks or pay them for the extra hour they worked by not taking the break. The plaintiffs sought more than $6 million in damages and penalties.

Granite Rock argued that it did provide the break times, but that some of its employees voluntarily chose to waive their rights to take them. The company said it wasn’t its duty to ensure the employees took those breaks.

Yesterday, the Santa Clara County Superior Court agreed with the defendant, saying in its decision it is not the employer’s duty to ensure employees are taking the breaks as long as the breaks are offered.

"We are pleased with Judge Kleinberg's ruling," said Alan Levins, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson and lead attorney for the defendant. "At the center of this case is the clarification of a critical wage and hour issue; that employers are required to make meal periods available to employees but are not required to force employees to take a lunch break."


Cathleen Flahardy

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.