CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION LAW

While the California Supreme Court will resolve this issue shortly, in Brookler v. Radioshack Corp., B212893, 2010 WL 3341816 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 26, 2010), an unpublished opinion issued today, the Second District Court of Appeal held that “Unless and until our Supreme Court holds otherwise, we agree with the analysis in Cicairos which held an employer’s obligation under the Labor Code and related wage orders is to do more than simply permit meal breaks in theory; it must also provide them as a practical matter.”

Morry Brookler filed a class action complaint against Radioshack for its alleged failure to provide employees with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes during a work period of more than five hours.  Id. *1.  The trial court certified the class. Radioshack filed a second motion for decertification after issuance of the opinion in Brinker, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 which the trial court granted. The California Supreme Court granted review in Brinker and the matter is currently pending.

Our Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker will resolve this issue. In the meantime, however, unless and until our Supreme Court holds otherwise, we agree with and adopt the analysis in Cicairos, supra, 133 Cal. App. 4th 949, holding an employer’s obligation under the Labor Code and IWC wage orders is to do more than simply permit meal periods in theory; it must also provide them as a practical matter. If the employer does not ensure compliance with meal period requirements, such behavior violates the Labor Code and corresponding wage orders. (See id. at p. 963.) “The IWC intended that, like overtime pay provisions, payment for missed meal and rest periods be enacted as a premium wage to compensate employees, while also acting as an incentive for employers to comply with labor standards.” (Murphy,supra, 30 Cal. 4th at p. 1110.)

Judges and Attorneys

Justice Fred Woods wrote the opinion for the court.  Justices Laurie D. Zelon and Frank Y. Jackson concurred.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Judge Edward A. Ferns.

Law Offices of Stephen Glick and Stephen Glick; Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, Paul R. Fine and Scott A. Brooks; Law Offices of Ian Herzog and Ian Herzog for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jones Day, Robert S. Brewer Jr. and Randy S. Grossman; Niddrie, Fish & Buchanan and Michael H. Fish for Defendant and Respondent.

By CHARLES H. JUNG