The long-awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court
(Honhbaum) makes clear that employers do not need to force
employees to take their meal breaks. Instead, an employer satisfies
its duty under California's meal period and rest break laws by
relieving its employees of all duties, relinquishing control over
their activities and permitting them a reasonable opportunity to
take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and not impeding or
discouraging them from doing so. The Court made clear that
"the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and
ensure no work thereafter is performed. Bona fide relief from duty
and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer's
The Court further clarified that if the employee voluntarily
chooses to continue to work during his or her break, "the
employer will not be liable for premium pay. At most, it will be
liable for straight pay, and then only when it 'knew or
reasonably should have known that the worker was working through
the authorized meal period.'" However, if an employer
encourages the employee to do work during
the meal break or otherwise effectively precludes the employee from
taking a 30-minute meal break, the employer may then be liable for
failing to provide required breaks. For additional information,
Foley Partner John Douglas authored an article that appeared in
Employment Law360 on November 14, 2011 titled, "
On the Brink of Deciding Brinker."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
One of the new Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements imposed on employers is the obligation to report employee group health plan coverage information to the IRS and employees on Forms 1094-C and 1095-C.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently
decided that a sports bar in Connecticut violated the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it terminated two workers for
commenting on and "liking" a Facebook post.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
The DOL is currently proposing to more than double the minimum annual salary threshold, which hasn't been updated since 2004, but it hasn't said whether it will change the relevant job duties test along with the salary bump.
The job description is an incredibly valuable tool for an employer, and an astounding number of businesses either do not have them, do not update them, or spend so little time on them that they are useless.