In Brinker v. Superior Court, the issue was whether California law required employers to provide the opportunity for meal breaks or to ensure the breaks were taken.  In July 2008, the Court of Appeal held that the employer was only required to make the breaks available, and did not have to ensure that they are taken.  In October 2008, the California Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeal’s decision and took the case under submission, with countless amicus briefs being filed.  Shortly after, the California took up review of the case Brinkley v. Public Storage, which also held that the breaks must only be available.  Since then, many courts have done their best to avoid ruling on such issues, leaving employers, employees, judges and lawyers in a holding pattern to see what the California Supreme Court would do.

In May 2011, a California Court of Appeal, in Flores v. Lams Plus, Inc., held that employers must only make the breaks available, but are not required to ensure the breaks are taken.  In supporting the arguments made in Brinker and Brinkley, the Appellate Court also stated that the trial court was not required to stay the ruling until the decisions in Brinker and Brinkley are handed down by the California Supreme Court; the Court noted that a long time had passed and that efficiency did not require everyone to continue to wait for those rulings.

As of now, employers are acting cautiously, but are optimistic that numerous appellate courts have ruled in their favor.  That said, employees are still holding out hope that the California Supreme Court will take steps to protect them. Stay Tuned.  In the meantime, if you were not give meal breaks or were pressured into not taking them, you still have rights and should seek legal advice.

For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.