Background - Serrano was a temporary hourly employee placed by staffing agency Aerotek to work in Bay Bread’s production facility; Aerotek’s contract required Bay Bread to comply with applicable laws and supervise the temp employees. - Aerotek had a written meal-period policy in its handbook, gave temporary employees the handbook and provided orientation and training; policy instructed employees to report if prevented from taking meal breaks. - Bay Bread set shifts, managed workflow and directed when (and whether) breaks occurred; Aerotek had an on-site account manager who made short twice-daily walk-throughs and reviewed time records but did not monitor meal breaks. - Serrano’s time records showed several late or missed meal breaks; she never reported being prevented from taking meal periods to Aerotek. - Serrano sued Aerotek and Bay Bread for meal-period violations, waiting-time penalties, UCL and PAGA claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Aerotek; the Court of Appeal affirmed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Did Aerotek satisfy its duty to provide compliant meal periods under Brinker? | Aerotek’s policy was irrelevant because Bay Bread did not implement or enforce it; Aerotek failed to ensure compliant breaks. | Aerotek adopted a lawful policy, trained temps, required reporting of interference, and did not prevent breaks. | Aerotek met its Brinker duty as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed. | | Was Aerotek required to investigate time records or "police" client compliance? | Time records showing late/missed breaks created a presumption of violations and required investigation. | Brinker does not require employers to police breaks or ensure employees actually take them; mere knowledge is insufficient. | No duty to investigate beyond providing compliant breaks and reporting mechanisms; no triable issue. | | Can Aerotek be held vicariously liable for Bay Bread’s alleged violations (joint-employer / nondelegable duty)? | Aerotek should be liable as joint employer or under nondelegable-duty principles (relying on Noe dictum). | Liability depends on the employer’s own statutory duty; Noe’s dictum about §226.7 is not controlling and conflicts with Brinker. | Court rejects Noe’s dictum and holds Aerotek is not automatically liable for co-employer’s breaches where Aerotek fulfilled its own duty. | | Were Serrano’s derivative claims (waiting-time, UCL, PAGA) viable once meal-period claim failed? | Derivative claims stand even if some meal-period issues exist. | Those claims rise or fall with the underlying meal-period claim. | Derivative claims dismissed because the primary meal-period claim failed. | ### Key Cases Cited Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (an employer satisfies its duty by relieving employees of all duty, relinquishing control, permitting a reasonable opportunity for a 30-minute break, and not impeding or discouraging breaks; no duty to police breaks) Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment burdens and standards) Noe v. Superior Court, 237 Cal.App.4th 316 (2015) (joint-employer context; discussion that some Labor Code duties attach by virtue of employer status; footnote on §226.7 treated as dictum here) Srithong v. Total Investment Co., 23 Cal.App.4th 721 (1994) (nondelegable duty doctrine overview) Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) (limitations on imposing liability beyond an employer’s own duty) Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 701 (2013) (discussion that a joint employer may in some circumstances satisfy obligations by delegating duties to a co-employer)