Driscoll v. Granite Rock
H037662
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Graniterock is a ready‑mix concrete company; drivers load, monitor rotating drums, deliver and pour perishable concrete that must be kept rotating and poured promptly.
- Approximately 200 current/former concrete mixer drivers sued Graniterock claiming denial of 30‑minute duty‑free meal periods and failure to pay one additional hour when meal periods were not provided.
- Graniterock offered drivers a written On‑Duty Meal Period Agreement (per IWC Wage Order) allowing paid on‑the‑job meals; the agreement required one working day’s notice to revoke.
- Trial court granted summary adjudication that the one‑day revocation term violated the Wage Order, but after bench trial found plaintiffs failed to prove Graniterock forced drivers to miss off‑duty meal periods.
- Evidence showed drivers received handbook and postings about meal rights, few revoked the on‑duty waiver, dispatchers testified drivers voluntarily preferred to work through lunch, and no driver was denied an off‑duty meal when requested.
- Trial court entered judgment for Graniterock; plaintiffs appealed and Graniterock cross‑appealed the summary adjudication. Appellate court affirmed and dismissed cross‑appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graniterock failed to provide 30‑minute duty‑free meal periods under Lab. Code §512 and §226.7 | Graniterock didn’t relieve drivers of all duty or relinquish control; making off‑duty meals available on request was insufficient | Graniterock provided legally compliant off‑duty meal periods when requested and posted policies; industry needs make scheduling impractical | Affirmed for Graniterock: substantial evidence supports that drivers were offered and obtained off‑duty meal periods when requested and employer relinquished control when granted |
| Whether drivers were coerced or induced to sign On‑Duty Meal Agreements and thus denied rights | Drivers were induced to waive meal rights; incentives or pressure led to waivers and missed breaks | Drivers voluntarily elected to work through lunches; no evidence of coercion or denial when requested | Held for Graniterock: plaintiffs failed to prove coercion or involuntary signing; drivers voluntarily declined breaks |
| Whether Graniterock’s one‑day revocation clause made the On‑Duty Agreement invalid | Agreement’s one‑day notice made revocation not at any time as required by Wage Order No. 1 | Graniterock argued operational need for processing revocations | Trial court earlier ruled clause noncompliant; cross‑appeal dismissed as moot after judgment affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether plaintiffs may raise on appeal that financial incentives illegally induced drivers to skip off‑duty meals | Plaintiffs argued new theory that pay incentives unlawfully induced waivers | Graniterock argued the issue was not tried and factual disputes preclude first‑time appellate consideration | Appellate court refused to consider new argument because it was not raised at trial and depended on disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (employer must provide meal period by relieving employee of all duty and relinquishing control; not required to police or ensure employee does not work during break)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (employer who fails to provide meal/rest periods must pay one hour of premium pay under §226.7)
- Shamblin v. Brattain, 44 Cal.3d 474 (1988) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence; factfinding rests with trial court)
- Williams v. Saunders, 55 Cal.App.4th 1158 (1997) (standard for appellate review of trial court factual findings)
- Bowers v. Bernards, 150 Cal.App.3d 870 (1984) (substantial evidence standard requires affirming findings supported on entire record)