Driscoll v. Granite Rock Company, H037662M

Background

Graniterock, a ready-mix concrete company, employed ~200 mixer drivers who load, deliver, monitor rotating concrete drums, and pour concrete; concrete is perishable and requires continuous drum rotation and timely pouring.
Company provided an "On‑Duty Meal Period Agreement" (drivers could sign to be paid and remain on duty during meals) that allowed revocation with one working day’s notice. Graniterock said one day was needed to process revocations.
Drivers were informed of their right to a 30-minute off‑duty meal via handbook and posted IWC wage order; drivers who did not sign or who revoked the agreement received an extra hour of pay ("Code 38").
Plaintiffs (five drivers on behalf of a class) sued alleging failure to provide duty‑free meal periods and failure to pay premium pay when drivers worked through meals; they also later argued Graniterock offered illegal financial incentives to induce working through meals.
Trial court granted plaintiffs’ summary adjudication that the one‑day revocation term violated the IWC wage order, but after a bench trial found for Graniterock on the merits: the company provided legally compliant off‑duty meal opportunities and drivers voluntarily declined them.
Plaintiffs appealed and raised the new financial‑incentives theory; Graniterock cross‑appealed the summary adjudication on the waiver revocation term (the cross‑appeal was dismissed as moot after affirmance).

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 IWC wage orders	Graniterock did not relieve drivers of all duty or relinquish control; permitting on‑duty meal practice effectively denied duty‑free breaks	Company provided notice, opportunity, and granted off‑duty breaks on request; industry constraints make scheduling impracticable and drivers voluntarily declined	Judgment for Graniterock affirmed: substantial evidence shows Graniterock provided compliant off‑duty meal opportunities and relinquished control when requested
Whether the On‑Duty Meal Period Agreement was invalid for not allowing revocation at any time (cross‑appeal)	N/A (plaintiffs sought summary adjudication below)	Graniterock contended the one‑day revocation requirement was valid	Trial court had granted plaintiffs summary adjudication invalidating the one‑day revocation; cross‑appeal dismissed as moot after affirmance of main judgment
Whether Graniterock illegally induced drivers to work through meals by offering financial incentives (raised first on appeal)	Financial incentives induced drivers to forgo off‑duty meal periods; this claim may be considered on appeal	Issue was not raised at trial; facts disputed and defendant lacked notice; cannot be raised for first time on appeal	Appeal court refused to consider the new theory because it was not litigated below and relied on disputed facts; alternative merits analysis also lacking in undisputed record
Proper standard of review for factual findings about meal‑break practice	Plaintiffs sought de novo review on legal compliance	Graniterock argued substantial‑evidence review applies to disputed factual findings	Court applied substantial‑evidence standard; will not reweigh evidence and affirms if record supports trial court findings

Key Cases Cited

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (employer must provide opportunity for an uninterrupted 30‑minute break, relieve employees of all duty, and relinquish control; employer need not police breaks)
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (failure to provide required meal periods triggers an extra hour of pay under Labor Code §226.7)
Shamblin v. Brattain, 44 Cal.3d 474 (1988) (appellate courts do not reweigh conflicting trial evidence; factual determinations supported by substantial evidence will be upheld)
Williams v. Saunders, 55 Cal.App.4th 1158 (1997) (substantial‑evidence standard of review for trial court factual findings)