California Supreme Court says no rounding of a square meal

A unanimous California Supreme Court used this clock-rounding case to deliver its broadest meal break opinion since Brinker, nearly a decade ago. This is the latest in the uniform supreme court authority recognizing California’s broad legislative public policy favoring employee protection.

Court reinforces Brinker rule

The supreme court began by reminding us of employers’ meal break burden established by the California Supreme Court’s 2012 Brinker decision:

[1] Employers must generally provide “a first meal period [of at least 30 minutes] by the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work, and a second meal period [of at least 30 minutes] by the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work."

[2] An “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."

[3] The employer "is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. There is no meal period violation if an employee voluntarily chooses to work during a meal period after the employer has relieved the employee of all duty."

[4] An employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks.

[5] If an employer does not provide an employee with a compliant meal period, then it must provide premium pay for the violation.

AMN’s good policy start