A recent California Supreme Court ruling could be costly for employers who err on meal calculation times, though employers may rebut the presumption of a violation by providing evidence that proves they complied with the law.
“As far as employers are concerned, the convoluted world of meal and rest breaks under California law could use some definitive rules; in Donohue v. AMN Services the Supreme Court unanimously provided clear rules, but they are likely not going to appeal to employers,” Jay Mootz, professor of law at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, told the Northern California Record by email.
“The 30-minute meal break that must be afforded before the end of the fifth hour of work is an individual right that cannot be subverted by ‘averaging out’ the time afforded for meal breaks.”
Mootz noted that in Donohue, the employer rounded the timeclock to the nearest 10-minute increment, assuming that over time the calculation would even out to 30 minutes.
“The Supreme Court held that the wage order clearly intended each meal break to be 30 minutes, and that an employer violates the statute even if the breaks ‘even out’ to 30 minutes over time. The court signaled its vigilance in protecting the right to a meal break as provided in the statute: ‘Given the relatively short length of a 30-minute meal period, the potential incursion that might result from rounding is significant. . . In [one] scenario, an employee would have lost nine of the 30 minutes – or almost a third of the time – to which he or she was entitled’ on a particular day. The court emphasized that within a brief 30-minute window a few minutes may be of great importance.”
Thus, the court made clear that every employee is entitled to the full 30-minute break on each workday, and that employers face the possibility of an expensive class action lawsuit even if the break times even out in the long run, Mootz said.
“The threat to employers is exemplified in this case,” Mootz said. “One employee filed a lawsuit, but because the practices by AMN extended to all employees, the case was brought as a class action. So, the damages that could be awarded are much higher than the ‘premium wages’ for an individual not receiving the meal break.”
Mootz noted the court clarified the common sense understanding that if the employer's time records reflect a violation of the meal period rules on their face, this creates a presumption of a violation.
"The employer may rebut that presumption, but in the absence of contrary evidence, the violation would be established," Mootz said. "If the employer cannot produce records showing that it complied with the meal break provision, given the legal obligation to keep such records, it makes sense to create a presumption of a violation."
“The court also clarified that the employer is not obligated to force the employee to take the full break, but merely to provide a system that affords ‘the employee with bona fide relief from duty and that this is accurately reflected in the employer's time records.’”
The ruling, which was issued Feb. 25, remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.