STF na Mídia - MyClipp

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