David Kadue Quoted in SHRM and La Opinion
"Ruling seen as victory for California employers" and "Corte Suprema falla a favor de empleadores Corte Suprema falla a favor de empleadores"

Seyfarth Shaw Los Angeles partner David Kadue was quoted in SHRM and La Opinion on April 25. The articles discussed a ruling in Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court, which concluded that employers only need to provide meal breaks for workers, not ensure that they actually take them. Brinker's attorneys argued that there should be flexibility for employees when choosing whether to take their scheduled breaks, and the decision still requires compliance with California meal and rest break law, manager training and good written policies.

In both articles, David stressed the importance of having a written policy. "Further, the written policy should specifically instruct employees to notify someone in upper management or human resources, in writing, if they have requested but have been denied the opportunity to take a meal and/or rest break," he told SHRM.

He also noted that although the court denied class certification for the “off the clock” work claims, it ruled that meal break claims can still be brought as class actions. “That’s the fly in the ointment,” he said. “We will have more litigation and another trip to the Supreme Court on that issue,” he predicted.

Other significant rulings included:

• Held, as to rest breaks, California employees are entitled to 10 minutes of rest for shifts from 3.5 to 6 hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than 6 and up to 10 hours and 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours.
• Clarified that California wage-and-hour law does not dictate in what sequential order meal and rest periods must be taken and does not prohibit an employer from scheduling meal periods early within the shift. While the first meal break must be made available within the first five hours of work, there is no “rolling five-hour rule,” which would require an employer to provide a meal period for each five hours worked.
• Upheld the appellate court decision claims of off-the-clock work were not appropriate for class certification, saying that, “On a record such as this, where no substantial evidence points to a uniform, companywide policy, proof of off-the clock liability would have had to continue in an employee-by-employee fashion.”

To read the full (Spanish) article from La Opinion, click here: http://www.laopinion.com/article/20120413/IMPORT01/304139872