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 companies don’t have to enforce employee breaks

State Supreme Court decision clarifies employers’ obligations

The California Supreme Court has delivered a long-awaited ruling that is at least a partial victory for employers.

The court ruled yesterday in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) that employers are not obligated to ensure that their employees take legally required meal and rest breaks.

In 2004, workers from Chili’s and Romano’s Macaroni Grill sued Brinker, which owns the restaurants, claiming managers pressured them to skip breaks, which violated California labor law. The suit proposed a class of about 60,000 nonunion, hourly employees. In 2008, a California appeals court sided with Brinker, finding that the company had to make such breaks available but was not required to ensure employees took their breaks.

Yesterday, the state’s high court agreed with the lower court’s decision. However, the court also allowed a class of workers to proceed with claims that Brinker denied proper rest breaks.

“The fact that we only have to provide, not police or ensure meal breaks, will be hugely significant to California employers,” said Brinker GC Roger Thomson.

Sarah Goldstein, an employment partner at Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo, told InsideCounsel that yesterday’s decision “will no doubt yield a positive result for those employers involved in class action lawsuits over their meal period policies. If an employer’s meal break policy is compliant under Brinker, and employers do not require employees to take their meal period, then there should be sufficient individualized issues concerning missed meal periods to make a strong argument against certification.”

Ashley Post

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.