Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

The recent amendment, however, supersedes the Tennessee DOL’s guidance and requires employers in the industry to provide meal breaks to all tipped employees in the service of food or beverages to customers. Realizing that unpaid meal breaks may be unpopular in the industry, the Tennessee General Assembly inserted a provision in the new law that allows tipped employees to waive their rights to unpaid meal breaks by signing a waiver request form. To obtain a valid meal break waiver, an employer must develop a waiver request form that acknowledges an employee’s right to an unpaid meal break and allows the employee to knowingly and voluntarily waive that right.
In addition to providing a valid waiver request form, the employer also must post in at least one conspicuous place in the workplace a reasonable policy that permits employees to waive their meal breaks subject to the demands of the work environment. The employer’s meal break waiver policy must contain the employer’s waiver form, must identify the length of time the waiver will be effective, and outline the procedure for rescinding the waiver agreement. For a waiver to be valid, the employee must submit the waiver request knowingly and voluntarily and both the employer and employee must consent to the waiver. In other words, the employer cannot coerce the employee into waiving a meal break.

The amendments become effective on May 16, 2012, and directly and significantly impact industry employers whose tipped employees may wish to waive their rights to meal breaks.

Photo credit: shirhan

Timing of Meal Periods

The California Supreme Court further held that employers must provide meal periods in accordance with the applicable Wage Order within the first five hours of a work shift. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that a meal must be provided every rolling five hours of work. Consequently, the first meal must be afforded no later than the end of the employee’s fifth hour of work (or no later than the start of an employee’s sixth hour of work), and a second meal period no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work.

Rest Breaks

Regarding rest breaks, the Brinker court held that a “major fraction” of a four-hour work period is anything more than two hours over and above the prior four-hour work period. Consequently, the rest break rules now mean: an employee who works a shift of only 3.5 hours or less is entitled to no rest break; an employee who works 3.5 to 6 hours is entitled to one 10-minute rest break; an employee who works more than 6 and up to 10 hours is entitled to two 10-minute rest breaks, and an employee who works more than 10 and up to 14 hours is entitled to three 10-minute rest breaks.

In terms of the timing of rest breaks, the court sided with Brinker, holding that employers are “subject to a duty to make a good faith effort to authorize and permit rest breaks in the middle of each work period, but may deviate from that preferred course where practical considerations render it infeasible.” The court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the rest period must in all situations be provided before the meal period.

Class Certification

The California Supreme Court clarified the trial court’s approach to determining whether to certify meal period and rest break claims. The court found it was error for the Court of Appeal to reverse class certification on the basis that rest breaks can be waived because Brinker’s uniform policy itself was alleged to violate the law. As for the meal period class, the court remanded to the trial court to reconsider its certification. Because the trial court used a class definition that assumed that Brinker was required to provide a meal period for every rolling five hours of work, the trial court must now reconsider whether the meal period claims should be certified in light of the clarification of the law now provided.

As a result, under certain circumstances class claims of meal and rest break violations may be certifiable. However, because it is now clear that employers must only make an off-duty meal period available and must simply authorize and permit rest breaks, meal period and rest breaks claims should be much more difficult to certify because of the individualized questions of fact those claims raise, assuming that the employer has legally compliant policies.

Compliance is Key

Importantly, the California Supreme Court did not address whether its decision should be applied on a prospective basis only, apparently leaving the argument open for parties to litigate in their individual cases. Employers should therefore immediately review their meal period and rest break policies and make any modifications necessary to reflect the Brinker court’s rulings today, and train their employees about the meal period and rest break policies as soon as possible.

For an even more detailed examination of the Brinker decision and its implication for employers, please see Littler’s ASAP, California Supreme Court Clarifies Employer Meal & Rest Period Duties, by Julie Dunne and Alison Hightower.

Photo credit: ODonnell Photograf

What Does It Mean to “Provide” a Meal Period?

Counsel for the employees, Kimberly Kralowec, argued that California law protects employees by requiring affirmative steps to be taken by the employers to ensure that work stops for the required 30 minutes for meal periods. She was immediately pummeled with questions by most of the justices regarding this position, particularly the practical effect on both employees and employers. A majority of the court seemed inclined to interpret the statutes and wage orders to give employees the flexibility to decide whether to work through meal periods.

Justice Goodwin Liu asked plaintiffs’ counsel, “isn’t the hallmark of a meal period that the employer suspends control? Shouldn’t the employee be allowed to work if he wants?” When plaintiffs’ counsel responded, “no, the employee can’t work; the employer exercises control over the employee to prevent the employee from working,” Justice Liu followed up by asking “isn’t this coercive? Isn’t the most worker-friendly interpretation that the employee can do what he or she wants?” Plaintiffs’ attorney disagreed.

Justice Kennard similarly inquired “how does the employer enforce that standard? Isn’t that tantamount to an “ensure” standard? Why not give the employee the flexibility?” Justice Baxter asked how it could be “protective” of the employee to require the employer to discipline or terminate the employee if that employee disregards the employer’s instructions and works during a meal period? Justice Werdegar skeptically asked plaintiffs’ counsel, “you’re saying in order to protect the employee, if the employee freely chooses to work he should be disciplined?” Plaintiffs’ counsel responded, “yes,” because the off-duty meal period is mandatory, the employer is in control and therefore should discipline the employee if he or she works during the meal. This standard, Ms. Kralowec contended, is the same as with overtime, where an employee can be fired for working without authorization but still must be paid.

Defense counsel Rex Heinke argued that an employer has an affirmative duty to provide an opportunity to take a 30-minute meal period relieved of all duty, but agreed with Justice Kennard that the statutory language provides some flexibility because the employee decides whether to take that time as an off-duty period.

When Must a Meal Period Be Provided?

Another issue raised by this appeal is when the employer must provide a meal period—in the middle of the shift or anytime within the shift? Brinker employees did not necessarily wait until the middle of their shifts to take a meal period and thus might work more than five hours before receiving a second meal period or ending their shifts. Plaintiffs contended that Labor Code section 512 requires employees to be provided a meal before the end of the fifth hour and at least once every five hour “work period.”

Justice Kennard interpreted the plaintiffs’ argument as providing no flexibility on this issue, summarizing that “after five hours you stop work.” She read a long passage from a Labor Commissioner’s hearing in which restaurant workers, truck drivers, nurses and other employees objected to being forced to take meal breaks by the end of the fifth hour. She thus seemed sympathetic to Brinker’s position that meal periods can be offered anytime within the shift.

Brinker’s attorney argued that the wage order does not say that an employee earns a meal period for each consecutive five hours of work. The statute says only that those employees working “more than 10 hours per day” are entitled to two meal periods, and that plaintiffs’ interpretation renders the language requiring a second meal after ten hours a day “mere surplusage.” The Industrial Welfare Commission, moreover, specifies that rest periods shall, insofar as practicable, be offered in the middle of the work period, but makes no similar requirement for meal periods, except in the wage order governing the entertainment industry. To the extent the Wage Orders require meal periods for every five hours of consecutive work, even if the Wage Order would give employees “greater protections”—that interpretation conflicts with the Labor Code and should be disregarded, according to Brinker’s attorneys.

Justice Liu, however, differed with that interpretation, contending that the language of the Wage Order instead means that after any work period of five hours—including one taken after a 30-minute meal—gives the employee the right to a meal period, even a second meal period in an 8- or 9-hour day. For instance, if the employee started work at 8 a.m., took a meal period from noon to 12:30 p.m., and then worked until 6 p.m., he would be entitled to a second meal because he worked more than 5 hours after lunch. Mr. Heinke responded that the commission that issued the wage orders specifically deleted language that would have so required, and adopted the words “per day” to specify the obligation as to provide one meal period per day unless the employee worked 10 or more hours in that day. Since the other justices did not offer an opinion, it is unclear which way the court will go on this issue.

Rest Periods

The parties’ positions were just as much at war with respect to the interpretation of the employer’s obligation to authorize and permit rest periods. Plaintiffs in their briefs characterized the court of appeal’s ruling as entitling an employee working an eight hour shift to only one rest break because the first rest break would be granted only “after” the first four hours of work. Brinker retorted that the appellate court found that such an employee would be entitled to two rest breaks in one eight-hour period.

In oral argument before the California Supreme Court plaintiffs focused on their contention that Brinker’s policies discouraged or impeded employees from taking rest breaks. Brinker never paid the one hour’s wage to any employees, never conducted a compliance audit, and did nothing to determine or monitor compliance, they argued. Plaintiffs claimed that Brinker’s policies impeded, frustrated or dissuaded employees from taking rest breaks because their tips were not pooled, so they would lose tips when they took rest breaks. Justice Corrigan inquired whether plaintiffs were arguing that the employer “must” use a tip-pooling policy, and plaintiffs’ counsel responded, no, but the court erred in not allowing plaintiffs as a class to challenge the practice of penalizing employees who took rest breaks. Justice Liu seemed incredulous, asking why can’t the employer structure tips as it chooses, and how is this unlawful? Plaintiffs responded that Brinker’s practice of denying tip pooling created a “coercive atmosphere” that in their view violated the Labor Code and the Wage Orders.

Class Certification

Equally important given the flood of class actions being brought, the California Supreme Court has been asked to decide some difficult and important issues involving the standards for certifying classes alleging missed meal and rest periods, particularly what evidence can establish liability on a class-wide basis:

• Did individual issues predominate over common issues, thereby precluding class certification?
• Could Brinker’s meal policy coupled with records of workers’ shift lengths establish violations of Labor Code section 226.7, supplemented with representative employee evidence and survey/expert testimony—even assuming that meal periods only had to be “made available” to employees?
• Could plaintiffs establish liability for rest period violations through common corporate policies, corporate time records, representative employee testimony and/or survey evidence?
• Did plaintiffs’ expert survey and statistical evidence prove common issues sufficient to support class certification?
• Did the appellate court reweigh the evidence in overturning class certification?

The trial court certified a class back in 2006, finding that a common legal question of whether Brinker must force employees to take meal breaks predominated despite the individualized questions Brinker raised to defend against a finding of liability. The appellate court reversed, and plaintiffs now seek to reinstate that class.

Unfortunately, the parties did not have sufficient time to address these issues in oral argument. Plaintiffs’ counsel did argue that class certification was appropriate based on what he characterized as common issues regarding Brinker’s asserted policies or practices to dissuade, impede or discourage taking rest breaks. Justice Liu asked how rest periods could be susceptible to class treatment when the employer is not required to keep records showing that they were in fact taken, particularly without a written policy that proved that rest periods were denied or impeded. Justice Werdegar followed with her own question that suggested that she agreed that at least this issue was amenable to class certification. Justice Liu returned to this issue by challenging plaintiffs’ counsel as having no basis to show that Brinker acted unlawfully if it allowed each waiter to keep his/her own tips rather than pooling them.

We now will await the court’s decision, due out by early February 2012.

Photo credit: ODonnell Photograf

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Rogelio Hernandez, an hourly, nonexempt restaurant employee, brought a class action against the Chipotle fast food restaurant chain, charging that the company denied him meal and rest periods. Chipotle subsequently brought a motion to deny class certification, relying on written policies that require managers to provide all employees with meal and rest breaks. Chipotle also introduced evidence that it pays employees for the time they take breaks even though they are relieved of all duties and are free to leave the restaurant. Lastly, Chipotle submitted declarations from a number of employees who attested that they had received all meal and rest breaks, but occasionally had forgotten to record them.

Hernandez brought his own motion for class certification, offering declarations from a number of employees attesting that managers had denied or interrupted their breaks, to varying degrees. Hernandez also relied on a report submitted by his expert suggesting that missed breaks were widespread.

The trial court denied class certification, holding that although Hernandez had established the factors of numerosity, ascertainability of the class, typicality of Hernandez’s claims and adequacy of representation, he had failed to demonstrate that common issues predominated over individual issues; consequently, class treatment was not superior to individual actions. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court recognized the vacuum created by the California Supreme Court’s decision to review Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court¹(pdf), but nonetheless concluded that the court was likely to decide that California employers are only required to provide employees with the ability to take breaks, not to ensure that breaks are actually taken. This appeal followed.

Court of Appeal Adopts ‘Provide’ Standard, Affirms Denial of Class Certification

Rather than shy away from the trial court’s embrace of the ‘provide’ standard, the court of appeal expressly affirmed the trial court’s analysis of the meal/rest period issue. It launched its own evaluation of the relevant statutes and regulations, concluding, as the trial court had, that “[i]t is an employer’s obligation to ensure that its employees are free from its control for thirty minutes, not to ensure that the employees do any particular thing during that time.”

In reaching this conclusion, the court limited the holding previously reached by another appellate court in Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (pdf), 133 Cal. App. 4th 949 (2005), which some have argued had suggested that the “ensure” standard was the appropriate test. The court noted that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement withdrew the opinion letter on which the Cicairos court based its analysis. Additionally, in Cicairos, the employer had established a system by which its driver employees were pressured to make a certain number of trips per today, a practice which effectively deprived drivers of the ability to take breaks. Hernandez could not point to any such practice implemented by Chipotle. “Thus,” the court concluded, “although the Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue, we hold that the trial court used the correct legal analysis with respect to meal breaks.”

Perhaps more importantly, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ability to address the legal issue, even in the vacuum created by the California Supreme Court’s review of Brinker. It noted that the California Supreme Court has not foreclosed trial courts from examining a legal issue at the class certification stage. Nor did another recent appellate decision, Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc. (pdf), 181 Cal. App. 4th 1286 (2010), alter the trial court’s analysis. In Jaimez, the court determined that the defendant’s employment practices presented predominant common factual issues as to the plaintiff’s meal and rest break claims. In Hernandez, however, individual issues predominated. The court noted that some employees declared they always missed meal breaks, while others declared that they received meal breaks but not rest breaks. Still others declared that they were not denied meal breaks, while others simply declared their breaks were simply delayed. Hernandez himself had testified at deposition that he almost always was provided with breaks at one location where he worked, while managers at another location regularly denied him breaks.

Lastly, the court also seized upon the inherent unreliability of the punch data offered by Hernandez. Because Chipotle paid its employees for meal and rest breaks, there was no incentive for employees to accurately record their break time.

This fact, plus various logical flaws in the analysis conducted by Hernandez’s statistical expert, persuaded the court that individual issues predominated over common ones, thereby warranting a denial of class certification. As the court itself noted, “the evidence before the trial court suggested that in order to prove Chipotle violated break laws, Hernandez would have to present an analysis restaurant-by-restaurant, and perhaps supervisor-by-supervisor. Given the variances in the declarations, Hernandez did not demonstrate a common practice or policy.”

Court Certifies Opinion for Publication

The court injected further energy into the meal/rest period debate on October 28, 2010, when it issued an order certifying its opinion for publication. Consequently, it is currently citable and available as precedent.

This decision could have significant ramifications on meal period and rest break practices in California and employers are encouraged to speak to their employment counsel to discuss these issues in detail.

This entry was written by Ryan Eskin.

Photo credit: skodonnell

¹ On October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review of Brinker to address the proper interpretation of California statutes and regulations governing an employer's duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.

In Re Novartis is a consolidated class action brought by Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (“Reps”) from California, New York and other states against Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, one of the largest drug manufacturers in the United States. Claiming that they were misclassified as exempt employees, the Reps seek overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Meaning of “Sales”

In the first of two justifications for its defense judgment, the district court held that Novartis Reps met the requirements of the outside salesperson exemption. Under Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA, “any employee employed . . . in the capacity of outside salesman” is exempt from the overtime pay requirement. 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1). DOL regulations define “outside salesman” as any employee “whose primary duty is making sales” while “customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business in performing such duty.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.500(A).

The parties do not dispute that Novartis Reps were employed “away from the employer’s place of business.” The real issue before the Second Circuit is the meaning of “sales.” The DOL’s brief draws a fine line distinction between the alleged promotional activities of the Reps and actual sales under the FLSA. The latter occurs only when consideration is paid by the client or customer, according to the DOL. Reps do join Novartis’ “sales force” and receive training in both sales techniques and pharmacology. However, FDA regulations bar Reps from selling drugs directly to physicians. Instead, Reps seek to persuade physicians to write prescriptions for Novartis products, ideally resulting in a “close,” i.e., obtaining a physician’s verbal commitment to prescribe Novartis drugs when appropriate. As part of Novartis’ incentive program, between 15% and 25% of the Reps’ salary comes from commission on the number of prescriptions written by physicians within the Reps’ territory. The average salary after incentives is $91,500. Though the DOL admits that the Reps’ duties “bear some of the indicia of sales,” it nevertheless objects to their classification as outside salespersons. In short, unless the Reps actually “make sales,” they do not qualify for the exemption, according to the DOL.

The Degree of “Discretion”

The lower court also held that that “even if [the Reps] are not outside salespersons, they are administrative employees and are still exempt.” In Re Novartis, 593 F. Supp. 2d at 640. The “administrative employee” exemption applies only to employees who exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(3).

In challenging the lower court’s ruling on the “administrative employee” exemption, the DOL urges the Second Circuit to interpret “discretion and independent judgment . . . in the light of all the facts involved in the particular employment situation in which the question arises.” In so doing, the DOL stresses that Reps must follow a prepared script when contacting target physicians, and they are prohibited from deviating from the “core message” in the marketing pitch. Novartis limits dissemination methods to certain pre-approved materials, including drug samples, pamphlets, clinical studies, and visual aids. When presented with the same facts, however, the lower court criticized the plaintiff Reps for characterizing themselves as “mere ‘robots’ or ‘automatons.’” The lower court found that the Reps exercise sufficient discretion in deploying the core messages and supporting materials. For instance, Reps tailor their presentations to the physician’s schedule, patient base, prescribing habits, and even personality. They also set their own daily call schedules, and use personal entertainment budgets to host informational events for physicians on their target lists.

The DOL argues that the district court’s ruling on the administrative exemption is “unpersuasive in its attempt to ‘back-fit’ the FLSA regulations into the pharmaceutical industry’s practices.” However, as noted by the lower court, “[c]ourts routinely hold that employees may exercise discretion and independent judgment, even when they carry out their duties within the confines of a highly regulated industry.”

This entry was written by Michael Harvey.

Photo credit: Tom Varco

The court of appeal reversed the punitive damages award on two grounds. First, the court held that the Labor Code statutes regulating pay stubs (§ 226), minimum wages (§ 1197.1), meal breaks (§ 512) and rest breaks all create new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law. Those statutes also established detailed remedial schemes for the rights they created. Accordingly, the court concluded that those Labor Code provisions fell within the long-standing “new right-exclusive remedy” doctrine, which provides that “where a statute creates new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law, the express statutory remedy is deemed to be the exclusive remedy available for statutory violations, unless it is inadequate.” The plaintiff did not raise, and the court did not address, the question of under what circumstances a statutory remedy would be deemed inadequate. 

The court also noted that punitive damages are ordinarily limited to actions “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” Although the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal/rest breaks and improper wage statements were all based upon statutory provisions, the statutory provisions apply only when the parties have entered into an employment contract and are therefore obligations “arising from the employment contract.” Accordingly, the court viewed the defendant’s violation of the Labor Code provisions as a breach of obligations arising from its employment contract with the plaintiff for which punitive damages were not available.

The good news for employers is that the court’s reasoning can be applied to a wide variety of Labor Code provisions, many of which apply only in the context of the employment relationship. 

Marlene Muraco authored this blog entry.