Attorneys’ Fees Not Available In Meal and Rest Break Claims

The California Supreme Court ruled that the winning party in meal and rest break cases cannot recover attorneys’ fees. In a unanimous decision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the court ruled that neither employees nor employers who prevail can receive an attorneys’ fees award.  

The decision may potentially reduce the financial incentive to bring meal and rest break claims. The court was asked to review whether attorneys’ fees could be awarded in meal and rest break cases under either one of two statutes:   

• Labor Code sec. 218.5, which provides that attorneys’ fees should be awarded to the prevailing party “[i]n any action brought for the nonpayment of wages ...”
• Labor Code sec. 1194, which provides that prevailing employees should be awarded attorneys’ fees in an action for any unpaid “legal minimum wage or ... legal overtime compensation.”

The court ruled that neither of these statutes allowed for an attorneys’ fee award in meal and rest break cases.

Under sec. 218.5, the court found that a meal and rest break action is not an action for nonpayment of wages but an action for failure to provide meal and rest periods. While the remedy for the failure is a wage, one hour of premium pay, the nature of the violation is failure to provide a break, not failure to pay wages.

Under sec. 1194, the court found that its plain meaning and history show it was meant to apply to minimum wage and overtime violations, and not to encompass meal and rest violations.

In the case before the court, the employer was the winning party, and the employer was not allowed to recover the attorneys’ fees it incurred as a result of having to defend against the meal and rest claim. 

The fact that the court’s ruling will also prevent plaintiffs/employees from using these statutes to recover attorneys’ fees in meal and rest break cases may help stem the ongoing flood of such claims. Plaintiffs’ attorneys may still add on other claims, such as PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) claims or other Labor Code violations, to obtain fees.

Gail Cecchettini Whaley, CalChamber Employment Law Editor/Staff Counsel

Got Brinker? HRCalifornia Has Updated Content and Guidance

As most employers know, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court case.

The Brinker case is extremely important to all California employers because it involves employers’ obligations relating to meal and rest breaks – an issue that’s caused significant litigation in federal and state courts and continues to be the source of class action lawsuits.

Our employment law experts updated HRCalifornia’s HR Library pages relating to meal and rest breaks (sign in required for CalChamber members), as well as all related quizzes, Q and A’s, and white papers, to reflect the changes to California law that result from the Brinker decision.

Not a member? Learn more about HRCalifornia.

To learn more about the Brinker decision, purchase CalChamber's on-demand Brinker webinar. CalChamber's employment law experts analyze the decision, and discuss best practices and tips on complying with the court’s decision.

On Video: The Brinker Decision's Impact

Yesterday, HRWatchdog gave a brief summary of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, relating to meal and rest breaks.

One key component of this ruling is that employers do not have to ensure that employees take their meal breaks, but must make them available. 

Stay tuned: CalChamber’s employment law experts will have more to say on the ruling. In the interim, take a couple of minutes to watch this Brinker video to get an idea of the impact of this decision.

Brinker Case Decided

Today, the California Supreme Court finally released its long-awaited decision in the Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court case. The Brinker case is extremely important to all California employers because it involves employers’ obligations relating to meal and rest breaks.

The most critical part of the unanimous ruling is that employers do not have to ensure that employees take their meal breaks, but must merely make them available. The court also provided flexibility to employers with regard to the timing of meal and rest breaks.

According to the court:

To summarize: An employer’s duty with respect to meal breaks under both section 512, subdivision (a) and Wage Order No. 5 is an obligation to provide a meal period to its employees. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so. What will suffice may vary from industry to industry, and we cannot in the context of this class certification proceeding delineate the full range of approaches that in each instance might be sufficient to satisfy the law.

According to Erika Frank, California Chamber of Commerce General Counsel and Vice President of Legal Affairs, “Employers have finally received some much-needed clarity in a common sense decision from the California Supreme Court that will provide certainty and flexibility to employers and employees allowing them to effectively manage their workload and serve their customers and clients. One of the most significant benefits of this ruling is that it will reduce employers’ exposure to costly and frivolous litigation.” 

Stay tuned to HRWatchdog for more information and analysis.

Gail Cecchettini Whaley, CalChamber Employment Law Editor/Staff Counsel 

Allow CalChamber’s employment law experts to interpret the ruling for you. Join us next Tuesday, April 17, for a 90-minute live webinar: Meal & Rest Breaks: What Does the Brinker Decision Mean for Your Workplace?

Our employment law experts will discuss the Brinker decision’s impact on your workplace, and analyze the Brinker decision's impact on current meal and rest break requirements for nonexempt employees. You will also learn best practices and tips on complying with the court’s decision.

Register now for the webinar.

Brinker is Coming! Brinker is Coming!

The California Supreme Court just announced that it will be filing its highly anticipated decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court tomorrow, April 12, at 10 a.m.

The employer community has been anxiously waiting for guidance from the state’s high court on several critical issues relating to meal and rest breaks, including:

• Must employers ensure that meal breaks are taken? Or must employers simply make the meal break available to employees?
• When during an employee’s shift must a meal break occur?
• When must a second meal break be provided?
• When must rest breaks be taken?

Stay tuned to HRWatchdog for updates on the decision. 

Register now for our April 17 webinar Meal & Rest Breaks: What Does the Brinker Decision Mean for Your Workplace? Our employment law experts will discuss the Brinker decision’s impact on you and help get you ready to comply.

Gail Cecchettini Whaley, CalChamber Employment Law Editor/Staff Counsel