&amp;lt;!–:en–&amp;gt;CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES FAVORABLY FOR EMPLOYERS NOT REQUIRING THEM TO &amp;quot;POLICE&amp;quot; THAT EMPLOYEES TAKE MEAL/REST BREAKS&amp;lt;!–:–&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!–:ja–&amp;gt;従業員の食事・休憩時間の取得を「監視する」必要はない、というカリフォルニア最高裁判所からの雇用主側に有利となる裁定&amp;lt;!–:–&amp;gt;April 12, 2012
Finally after several years of waiting, The California Supreme Court on Thurs., April 12 ruled in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Supreme Court of San Diego County that employers are not under an obligation to make sure their workers take legally required lunch and rest breaks.
The Brinker case is very important in that it finally answered the question on whether California employers have to simply make meal and rest breaks available or enforce that they are taken.
This is a very important case for California employers because it affects thousands of businesses and millions of workers and the court’s decision will have an impact on reducing the numerous class-action lawsuits surrounds this issue that has cost California companies millions of dollars in legal fees.
In the Brinker decision decided today, the California Supreme Court sided with businesses when it ruled that requiring companies to order breaks is unmanageable and those decisions should be left to workers. The Court explained in its decision that state law does not compel an employer to ensure employees cease all work during meal periods, instead saying the employee is at liberty to use the time as they choose.
Although California state law has mandated meal and rest breaks for several decades, it wasn’t until 2001 that California became one of only a few states that impose a monetary penalty for employers who violate these laws requiring employers to pay one hour of wages for a missed half-hour meal period. The lawsuits began growing by exponential numbers from that point.
NOTE: There is no federal law requiring employers to provide such breaks.