Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bad_Daddy

California Supreme Court: Managers don't have to ensure lunch breaks

8 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/court-managers-dont-ensure-lunch-breaks-181751682.html

By JASON DEAREN | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that employers are under no obligation to ensure that workers take legally mandated lunch breaks in a case that affects thousands of businesses and millions of workers.

The unanimous opinion came after workers' attorneys argued that abuses are routine and widespread when companies aren't required to issue direct orders to take the breaks. They claimed employers take advantage of workers who don't want to leave colleagues during busy times.

The case was initially filed nine years ago against Dallas-based Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's and other eateries, by restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.

But the high court sided with businesses when it ruled that requiring companies to order breaks is unmanageable and that those decisions should be left to workers. The decision provided clarity that businesses had sought regarding the law.

The opinion written by Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar explained that state law does not compel an employer to ensure employees cease all work during meal periods. It stated that while employers are required to free workers of job duties for a 30-minute meal break, the employee is at liberty to use the time as they choose even if it's to work, she wrote.

"The employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed," Werdegar wrote.

Tracee Lorens, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said she believed the court's decision still allowed some wiggle room for the case to get class-action certification on the meal break claims. Lorens said she was pleased the court did allow a separate claim regarding the plaintiffs' receiving proper rest breaks to proceed as a class-action.

Class-action lawsuits are brought by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others facing the same circumstances, and can include thousands of people in some cases.

Adam Hohnbaum, a former Chili's bartender and server in Encinitas, Calif., who worked for the chain for about six years, said he was pleased with the court's decision allowing at least the rest break aspect of the suit to move forward.

"Most of the time you didn't get a break or a rest period at all, it just wasn't a part of the daily operation," Hohnbaum said.

Hohnbaum hoped the attention paid to the issue would improve working conditions for current employees.

It was unclear whether the opinion would reduce or increase future class-action lawsuits on the issue because the court did not dismiss the meal break violation claim by workers but instead sent it back to be reargued in trial courts.

Lorens said she will argue to the lower court that Brinker's company meal break policies still violate state wage-and-hour laws, even though the court said employers do not have to police when those breaks are taken.

Roger Thomson, executive vice president and general counsel of Brinker, applauded the court's decision on what he thought was the key issue: whether employers must ensure workers take their breaks.

"That was the biggest issue to us," Thomson said. "It has been allowed for our team members to work through lunch if they want or take the time off instead, and this ruling allows our team members that flexibility," he said.

Generally, employer-side attorneys were confident that Thursday's ruling would reduce future class-action lawsuits surrounding the meal break issue in California, which has cost companies millions of dollars in legal costs.

"The courts are making it clear that you have to create a system and a procedure that fully allows employees an opportunity to take breaks and meal periods, and if they do that they do not have to be Big Brother and individually monitor each employee to ensure that they've taken every bit of their breaks," said Steve Hirschfeld, founder and CEO of the Employment Law Alliance, an employer-side legal trade group.

Others said the court's opinion did little to stem the tide of meal break lawsuits.

"It left enough holes open that creative plaintiff's lawyers will continue to file these cases. In short, it's business as usual. And already overburdened court system will continue to be flooded by these daily filings," employment lawyer Mark Neubauer said.

Attorneys for workers said low-wage workers such as those at Chili's and other restaurants face unique issues that dissuade them from requesting meal and rest periods.

"The decision ... should have required employers to take affirmative steps to provide meal periods, and not just adopt policies that allow them," Fernando Flores of the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, said in a statement.

"The (court) previously held that employees who are denied their rest and meal periods face greater risk of work-related accidents — especially low-wage workers who engage in manual labor," Flores said.

The Brinker decision doesn't account for the public health and general welfare argument and weakens these standards for millions of low-wage workers across California, he added.

State law has mandated meal and rest breaks for decades. But in 2001, California became one of only a few states that impose a monetary penalty for employers who violate these laws, requiring employers to pay one hour of wages for a missed half-hour meal break. There is no federal law requiring employers to provide such breaks.

There are no estimates of how much has been paid out by employers, because the penalties are paid directly to individual employees, legal experts said.

Meanwhile, California's restaurant owners applauded the opinion as helpful guidance in determining their obligations to employees.

"The ruling dramatically affects how our industry operates and provides clarity to restaurateurs who have been left to guess what their legal obligations are. We believe this ruling will benefit employers and employees alike," said Jot Condie, president and CEO of the California Restaurant Association.

Edited by Why_Me

sigbet.jpg

"I want to take this opportunity to mention how thankful I am for an Obama re-election. The choice was clear. We cannot live in a country that treats homosexuals and women as second class citizens. Homosexuals deserve all of the rights and benefits of marriage that heterosexuals receive. Women deserve to be treated with respect and their salaries should not depend on their gender, but their quality of work. I am also thankful that the great, progressive state of California once again voted for the correct President. America is moving forward, and the direction is a positive one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline

As long as they get bathroom breaks, otherwise I'm not drinking the coffee.


IR5

2007-07-27 – Case complete at NVC waiting on the world or at least MTL.

2007-12-19 - INTERVIEW AT MTL, SPLIT DECISION.

2007-12-24-Mom's I-551 arrives, Pop's still in purgatory (AP)

2008-03-11-AP all done, Pop is approved!!!!

tumblr_lme0c1CoS21qe0eclo1_r6_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

What a stupid lawsuit...

I worked in restaurants when I was in my late teens/early 20's and it's no where near as bad as they are making it out to be... If people didn't take any type of break during the day, it was on them...

This is just another case of some dumb ####### blaming someone else for their problems. People like the one filing the suit should be put in jail for wasting company/tax payer dollars...


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Philippines
Timeline

Don't be surprised if there is a lawsuit about a marijuana break :devil:


Sent I-129 Application to VSC 2/1/12
NOA1 2/8/12
RFE 8/2/12
RFE reply 8/3/12
NOA2 8/16/12
NVC received 8/27/12
NVC left 8/29/12
Manila Embassy received 9/5/12
Visa appointment & approval 9/7/12
Arrived in US 10/5/2012
Married 11/24/2012
AOS application sent 12/19/12

AOS approved 8/24/13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: IR-1/CR-1 Visa Country: China
Timeline

i guess they have nothing else better to do in their precious time.


"Family time is very precious and you should cherish every moment of it."

01/20/12 - I-130 sent to Chicago Lockbox.

01/26/12 - NOA1 received and processing at Vermont.

06/28/12 - NOA2 announced on status check.

06/29/12 - NVC received case learned on 07/2/12.

06/30/12 - Hard copy NOA2 received.

07/09/12 - NVC Casefile Number and IIN Issued.

07/16/12 - Receive and Sent DS-3032 via email.

07/17/12 - Mailed DS-3032 via mail, AOS bill received via email, paid online, Optin email sent.

07/18/12 - Optin accepted and new case number, AOS marked paid, emailed AOS packet.

07/24/12 - Assigned as Agent, IV Fee bill received via email, paid online.

07/25/12 - IV Fee marked paid, emailed IV packet.

07/31/12 - Emailed GZO Supplemental Packet 3.

08/02/12 - Case completed and commenced final review.

08/03/12 - Shipped all copies of forms/letters/documents to my wife - arriving on 8/9/12.

08/06/12 - Case completed final review.

08/09/12 - Appointment letter received via email interview date set 9/6/12.

08/14/12 - Medical exam done.

08/15/12 - Medical exam results all normal.

09/06/12 - Submitted required documents at the embassy and interview set next day at 0730.

09/07/12 - Visa approved, click here for review http://www.visajourney.com/reviews/view-dos-cis-reviews.php?entry=10401 .

09/14/12 - Visa received on hand!

10/07/12 - Arrived at NYC! click here for review http://www.visajourney.com/reviews/view-poe-reviews.php?entry=15293

10/20/12 - Received welcome letter from USCIS.

10/25/12 - Green Card received!

"Nothing is more difficult than the art of maneuvering for advantageous positions." - Sun-Tzu

04/27/13 - Submitted DS-160 online for parent-in-laws and sister-in-law.

05/01/13 - Paid DS-160 or MRV Fee Payments on CGI Stanley.

05/03/13 - Made appointment for 05/16/13 on CGI Stanley.

05/16/13 - Arrived at GUZ and impromptu notice on the front it was closed.

05/30/13 - B2 visa interview passed! Read review here http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/433263-b2-visa-was-approved-for-parentinlaw/ <p>

"Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into practice with courageous patience." - ADM Hyman G. Rickover

08/08/14 - Mailed I-175 application.

08/11/14 - I-175 arrived at VSC.

08/18/14 - Received NOA1 with date 08/12/14.

08/27/14 - Received biometrics appointment for 09/09/14.

02/27/15 - GC in production from email notification.

03/02/15 - Received NOA2 with approval dated 02/25/15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Philippines
Timeline

i guess they have nothing else better to do in their precious time.

And the lawyers are smiling all the way to the bank.


Sent I-129 Application to VSC 2/1/12
NOA1 2/8/12
RFE 8/2/12
RFE reply 8/3/12
NOA2 8/16/12
NVC received 8/27/12
NVC left 8/29/12
Manila Embassy received 9/5/12
Visa appointment & approval 9/7/12
Arrived in US 10/5/2012
Married 11/24/2012
AOS application sent 12/19/12

AOS approved 8/24/13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

And the lawyers are smiling all the way to the bank.

As usual.


"The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!" - Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945.

"Retreat hell! We just got here!"

CAPT. LLOYD WILLIAMS, USMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...