STF na MÃdia - MyClipp
STF na MÃdia - MyClipp
STF na MÃdia - MyClipp
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Reuters General/ - Article, Qui, 12 de Abril de 2012<br />
CLIPPING INTERNACIONAL (Supreme Court)<br />
Workers' class action against Brinker can<br />
proceed, in part<br />
By Terry Baynes Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:33pm EDT<br />
(Reuters) - Part of a class-action lawsuit against<br />
Brinker Inter<strong>na</strong>tio<strong>na</strong>l Inc can proceed, the California<br />
Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in a closely<br />
watched case about employee meal and rest breaks at<br />
the company's restaurants. The California high court<br />
authorized a class of workers in the state to proceed<br />
with claims that they were denied proper rest breaks<br />
by Brinker. With respect to the meal break claims, the<br />
court ruled that employers only have to provide meal<br />
periods to workers, not make sure employees actually<br />
take them. "An employer must relieve the employee of<br />
all duty for the desig<strong>na</strong>ted period, but need not ensure<br />
that the employee does no work," Associate Justice<br />
Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the u<strong>na</strong>nimous court.<br />
Workers first sued Brinker, which owns Chili's and<br />
Romano's Macaroni Grills, in 2004 on behalf of a<br />
proposed class of around 60,000 non-unionized,<br />
hourly employees. They claimed that ma<strong>na</strong>gers<br />
pressured them to skip their breaks by failing to<br />
adequately staff the restaurants or by threatening to<br />
cut or change their hours. Brinker's attorneys argued<br />
that employees should have flexibility in choosing<br />
whether to take their scheduled breaks. A California<br />
appeals court sided with Brinker in 2008, finding that<br />
the restaurant company only had to "make available"<br />
the meal and rest breaks, but not "ensure" they were<br />
taken. The state's Supreme Court agreed that<br />
employers do not have to police meal breaks but do<br />
need to relieve workers of duties at those times. The<br />
court also resolved uncertainty over whether<br />
employers need to enforce a "rolling five-hour" rule,<br />
which gives workers a right to an uninterrupted meal<br />
break after five consecutive hours of work. The first<br />
meal break must fall no later than five hours into an<br />
employee's shift, but employers do not have to<br />
schedule additio<strong>na</strong>l meal breaks every five hours, the<br />
court ruled. The court also set out clear guidelines for<br />
the number and timing of rest breaks, upholding a<br />
lower court's decision to authorize a class action on<br />
those claims. Tracee Lorens, a lawyer for the plaintiffs,<br />
welcomed the opinion as a win for low-wage workers<br />
across the state. "We never argued employers had to<br />
police breaks. We just argued that they had an<br />
affirmative obligation to relieve the employees of duty<br />
so that they could take their lunch break if they wanted<br />
to," she said. She said the case would now go back to<br />
the trial court to determine whether the meal break<br />
claims can remain part of the class action. A<br />
spokeswoman for Brinker said the company was still<br />
reviewing the ruling and could not immediately<br />
comment. California employers and labor lawyers have<br />
waited for three years for the high court to clarify<br />
ambiguities in the state's wage laws, which require<br />
extra pay for meal and rest break violations. "We had<br />
an epidemic of meal and rest-break cases where<br />
virtually every employer in the state was being sued,"<br />
said Scott Witlin, a Los Angeles employment lawyer at<br />
Barnes & Thornburg who is not involved in the case.<br />
The lawsuits have continued to flow in, claiming<br />
millions in damages. Many have resulted seven-figure<br />
settlements due to uncertainty in the law, he said,<br />
adding that the ruling helps businesses by clarifying<br />
the law. Joseph Liburt, an employment lawyer at Orrick<br />
in Silicon Valley, said most businesses have been<br />
taking a conservative approach, paying the extra<br />
pe<strong>na</strong>lty whenever an employee's timecard shows a<br />
potential meal break issue. Many employers have also<br />
tried to make sure workers actually take their breaks,<br />
he said. The case is Brinker Restaurant Corp v.<br />
Superior Court (Hohnbaum), California Supreme<br />
Court, No. S166350. (Reporting By Terry Baynes;<br />
Editing by Steve Orlofsky)<br />
12