Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
273 P.3d 513
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Brinker owns/operates California restaurants; Hohnbaum is a putative class representative for nonexempt Brinker employees.
- Labor Code and Wage Order No. 5 require meal/rest breaks with specific timing and premium wages for violations.
- DLSE sued Brinker in 2002; Brinker settled for $10 million and any liability was disclaimed.
- First amended complaint alleges Brinker failed to provide rest and meal breaks and engaged in early lunching and off-the-clock work.
- Trial court certified three wage-and-hour subclasses (Rest Period, Meal Period, Off-The-Clock); Court of Appeal reversed certification of all three; Supreme Court grants review to resolve class-certification framework and the specific meal/rest obligations at issue.
- Court clarifies predominance framework, interprets Duty to provide rest and meal periods under Wage Order No. 5 and §512, and remands for recalibration of meal-period subclass in light of clarified law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class certification requires resolving threshold disputes about elements before deciding predominance. | Hohnbaum argues threshold element disputes should be decided first. | Brinker argues such disputes must be resolved up front to assess predominance. | No mandatory threshold resolution; certification can proceed if predominance shown. |
| What is the employer’s duty to provide rest periods under Wage Order No. 5 (timing and amount). | Uniform Rest Policy violates major-fraction rule and predicated on common issues. | Employer must permit rest breaks; timing flexible per practicability. | Rest time = 10 minutes per four hours, more with longer shifts; timing middle-of-period preferred but not required in all cases. |
| What is the scope of meal-period duties under Wage Order No. 5 and §512 (off-duty vs on-duty; timing). | Employer must ensure employees are relieved of all duties for 30 minutes. | Employer need only make meal periods available; not required to ensure no work occurs. | Employer must relieve employees of all duties for off-duty meal periods; on-duty meal periods allowed only under specific conditions; no extra timing beyond §512. |
| Whether off-the-clock subclass is appropriate given lack of common policy proving. | There is evidence of off-the-clock work under a common policy/alignment. | No uniform policy; off-the-clock claims require individualized proof. | Off-the-clock subclass certification rightly rejected. |
| Remedy course: whether to remand meal-period subclass certification after clarified law. | Court should affirm certification. | Court should deny certification if law limits common proof. | Remand to reconsider meal-period subclass with clarified law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) (monetary remedies for meal/rest break violations; remedial purpose)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (predominance, manageability, and class certification standards)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (threshold issues and merits interplay in certification)
- Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 906 (Cal. 2001) (enforceability of class actions across state-law choices; predominance/manageability)
- Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., 89 Cal.App.4th 908 (Cal. App. 2001) (predominance analysis in class actions)