896 F.3d 952
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Bernardina Rodriguez worked as a Taco Bell team member (2005–2012) and regularly purchased a voluntary 30‑minute discounted employee meal that she was required to eat on the restaurant premises.
- Taco Bell’s Handbook provided meal/rest‑break rules: employees must be relieved of duties during meal periods and eat discounted meals in the restaurant; discounted meals were voluntary and intended to prevent theft.
- Rodriguez sued in state court, removed to federal court, and brought putative class claims alleging Taco Bell failed to provide uninterrupted duty‑free meal/rest breaks and related wage violations (including regular‑rate/overtime treatment of discounted meals).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Taco Bell on the meal/rest‑break claims, finding employees were relieved of all duty and the on‑premises requirement applied only to voluntary purchases; denied plaintiff summary judgment on the regular‑rate claim for lack of evidence of employer cost/fair value of meals.
- Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the remaining claim with prejudice, creating a final judgment and triggering this appeal. The Ninth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether on‑premises condition for voluntary discounted meals converts meal period into compensable on‑duty time | On‑premises requirement places employees under employer control, so meal time is "on duty" and payable | Meal purchase/eating is voluntary; employees are relieved of all duties and free to use break time as they wish; on‑premises rule prevents theft, not work control | Rejected plaintiff: on‑premises condition for voluntary discount does not convert break into compensable time; summary judgment for Taco Bell affirmed |
| Whether Taco Bell relinquished control and provided uninterrupted 30‑minute breaks as required by Brinker | Plaintiff: condition nonetheless exerts control inconsistent with Brinker | Taco Bell: Brinker satisfied because employees relieved of all duty and not discouraged from leaving or using break | Court: Brinker standard met; Taco Bell relinquished control |
| Whether the on‑premises rule makes employees "on call" or otherwise subject to performance obligations during break | Plaintiff: alleged employer control comparable to on‑call cases | Taco Bell: employees not required to be reachable or perform duties; policy forbids remaining in production/register areas | Court: distinguishes on‑call cases (Augustus, Madera); here employees were not on call or required to perform duties |
| Whether the discount value must be included in the regular rate for overtime absent proof of employer cost/fair value | Plaintiff: discount should be added to regular rate (seeking overtime) | Taco Bell: if value were compensation, plaintiff must prove reasonable cost/fair value to employer; no such evidence given | Court: denied plaintiff summary judgment; plaintiff failed to show reasonable cost/fair value, and overtime claim was largely derivative of the rejected on‑duty theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012) (employer must relieve employees of all duty, relinquish control, and permit reasonable opportunity for uninterrupted 30‑minute meal breaks)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 995 P.2d 139 (Cal. 2000) (travel time compensable where employer required use of employer‑provided transportation; optional benefits not compensable)
- Augustus v. ABM Security Servs., Inc., 385 P.3d 823 (Cal. 2016) (on‑call/rest‑period device requirement can make breaks compensable because it undermines freedom to use breaks)
- Madera Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Madera, 682 P.2d 1087 (Cal. 1984) (employees required to remain subject to employer control during breaks and forbidden personal business were on duty)
- Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 165 P.3d 133 (Cal. 2007) (California follows federal standard for including fair value/cost of goods/facilities in regular rate)
- Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1995) (voluntary dismissal with prejudice of remaining claims can create an appealable final judgment)
- Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 876 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2017) (post‑Baker recognition that voluntary dismissal can render interlocutory orders appealable where Rule 23(f) is not implicated)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017) (voluntary‑dismissal tactic cannot be used to evade Rule 23(f) class‑certification review)