Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 MAY 2012

Employment Law Commentary - April 2012

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

This month the California Supreme Court announced its long-awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, holding that employers must provide their nonexempt employees uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods, but need not additionally ensure that the employees take them.

United StatesEmployment and HR

The Post-Brinker Workplace – What Every Employer Should Know

This month the California Supreme Court announced its long-awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court,1 holding that employers must provide their nonexempt employees uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods, but need not additionally ensure that the employees take them. But in addition to finally deciding the headline "provide v. ensure" issue that has exposed employers to countless class action lawsuits over the last decade, the Court decided a number of other important meal and rest period compliance and timing issues. And on the all-important question of whether meal and rest break claims can be litigated classwide, the Court addressed several critically important issues that will guide future trial courts in deciding whether or not to certify wage and hour lawsuits as class actions. Here are the key takeaway points from Brinker and what they mean for California employers. Meal

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from