Brady v. Autozone Stores, Inc.
93564-5
| Wash. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Michael Brady filed a putative class action alleging AutoZone withheld required 30‑minute meal breaks under WAC 296-126-092.
- AutoZone removed to federal court and the district court denied class certification after concluding Washington law requires employers to provide a meaningful opportunity for a meal break (not strict liability).
- Brady sought review; the federal court certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court about (1) strict liability under WAC 296-126-092 and (2) the burden of proof if not strictly liable.
- WAC 296-126-092 mandates a 30‑minute meal period within 2–5 hours of shift start, allows employees to waive meal periods, and treats rest periods differently (no waiver).
- The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the regulation, Department of Labor & Industries policy (which permits waiver), and relevant caselaw to answer the certified questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an employer strictly liable under WAC 296-126-092? | Brady argued employers have an affirmative duty and used "strict liability" to describe employer responsibility for missed breaks. | AutoZone agreed strict liability is not the correct framing; employer obligation exists but need not be strictly liable. | No — not strictly liable; employees may waive meal breaks, so a missed break does not automatically impose employer liability. |
| If not strict liability, who bears the burden to prove a meal-break violation or waiver? | Brady (relying on Pellino) argued employers must ensure breaks are taken and bear burden to prove a valid waiver (affirmative defense). | AutoZone urged the plaintiff must prove all elements and that employer should not bear shifted burden. | An employee can establish a prima facie case by showing they did not receive a timely meal break; burden then shifts to the employer to rebut by proving no violation occurred or that a valid waiver exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 171 Wn.2d 486 (agency deference and answering certified questions)
- Pellino v. Brink's Inc., 164 Wn. App. 668 (employer duty to provide meal periods; waiver as affirmative defense)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (employer must provide reasonable opportunity for uninterrupted meal breaks)
- Demetria v. Sakuma Bros. Farms, Inc., 183 Wn.2d 649 (remedial provisions construed to enhance worker protections)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (burden shifting and employer recordkeeping in wage cases)
- Ruiz-Guzman v. Amvac Chem. Corp., 141 Wn.2d 493 (scope of answering federal certified questions)