The California Supreme Court recently issued its long
awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. The Superior Court of San
Diego County, 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3149 (Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) [an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers],
in which it reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and concluded that
trial courts are not obligated as a matter of law to resolve threshold disputes
over the elements of a plaintiff's claims on a motion for class certification,
unless particular determination is necessarily dispositive of the certification
question. The Court also determined several threshold issues, upon the parties'
request, including the nature of an employer's duty to provide meal periods. In
addressing that issue, the Court concluded that an employer's obligation is to
relieve its employees of all duty, with the employees thereafter at liberty to
use the meal period for whatever purposes he or she desires, but the employer
need not ensure that no work is done. 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3149, at *8.
The court held that presented with a class certification
motion, a trial court must examine the plaintiff's theory of recovery, assess
the nature of the legal and factual disputes likely to be presented and decide
whether individual or common issues predominate. To the extent the propriety of
certification depends upon disputed threshold factual or legal questions, a
court may, and indeed must resolve them. Recognizing the problems that might
arise as a result of the rule against one way intervention, the Brinker
court cautioned courts to generally eschew resolution of such issues unless
necessary. Therefore, the court held that it is not an abuse of discretion for
a trial court to certify a class without deciding one or more issues affecting
the nature of a given element if resolution of such issues would not affect the
ultimate certification decision. 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3149, at *28.
In reviewing the issue of the scope of an employer's duty
to provide meal periods, the Brinker court concluded that an employer
must relieve an employee of all duty for the meal period, but need not ensure
that the employee does not work. 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3149, at *49. The employer
satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty,
relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable
opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or
discourage them from doing so. However, the Court held that work by a relieved
employee during a meal break, does not create liability for premium pay by the
employer. 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3149, at *64-65.
Abbey Spanier Rodd
& Abrams, LLP, located in New York City, is a well-recognized national
class action and complex litigation law firm.
Read more articles by the attorneys of Abbey Spanier LLP
more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us
through our corporate site.