
On July 18, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that Taco Bell had violated California’s meal period and overtime requirements by requiring employees who purchased discounted meals to stay on the premises during their meal period. The Court held that Taco Bell did not violate California law and affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of Taco Bell in a proposed class action suit titled Rodriquez v. Taco Bell Corp. (9th Cir. Case No. 16-15465).
California law generally requires that employers provide non-exempt employees a thirty minute duty free meal period if the employee works more than five hours in a workday. To satisfy the requirement that non-exempt employees must be free of employer control during unpaid meal periods, such employees must, as a general rule, be free to leave the premises of their employer during unpaid meal periods.
In this case, Taco Bell had a policy which offered employees an option to purchase discounted meals during their meal periods so long as the employee remained in the restaurant while on break. Rodriquez argued that Taco Bell failed to relieve employees of all duty during their meal periods because employees were required to stay on the premises if they wanted a discounted meal. The employees sought to recover meal period premiums and overtime pay on the basis that the meal periods should have been treated as compensable time because Taco Bell did not relinquish all control over the employees’ activities.
In finding that Taco Bell’s discounted meal policy was consistent with California law, the Ninth Circuit applied the standard established by the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012). In Brinker, the Court explained that employers comply with California’s meal period laws when they relieve employees “of all duty, relinquish control over their activities and permit them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and do not impede or discourage them from doing so.”
The Ninth Circuit held that Taco Bell complied with the Brinker standard because employees were free to use their meal period as they wished—the requirement to remain on the premises applied only if an employee voluntarily chose to purchase a discounted meal.
The Ninth Circuit did not view the discounted meal policy as a requirement imposed on employees. Instead, the panel viewed the subsidized meal policy as a benefit to employees that the employer could discontinue. The panel also denied plaintiff’s claim for overtime pay during these meal periods, stating that because “plaintiff is not entitled to be paid for her time eating the meals, she is not entitled to overtime pay for it.”
To ensure your company’s policies and practices comply with this ever-changing area of the law, please contact your usual counsel at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo or the authors of this post.
- Partner
Amber Healy has extensive experience litigating class actions and complex matters in state and federal courts throughout California. Her practice focuses on the defense of employers and management in class action ...
- Associate
April Szabo focuses her practice on employment matters, with an emphasis on practical, cost-effective client counseling and litigation. She specializes in providing clients with Human Resources guidance, including wage/hour ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- President Biden’s Administration Halts Department of Labor’s Final Rule for Worker Classification
- Rotational Employees Can Have Their “On” And “Off” Weeks Counted Against Their FMLA Leave Entitlement
- Ninth Circuit Issues Important Decision on Per Diem Pay
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Victory for Trucking Industry: California Meal and Rest Break Rules Preempted by Federal Law as to Commercial Drivers
- They Say Never Discuss Politics In Polite Company, But How Can Employers Handle Impolitic Off-Duty Conduct?
- DOL Permits Back-of-the-Restaurant Staff to Share in Servers’ Tips
- Can California Employers Be Liable For Failure To Prevent Something That Never Happened?
- Employer’s Delay is Fatal to Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement
- California Employers: The federal Department Of Labor’s Final Rule For Worker Classifications Does Not Eliminate The Requirements Under California’s ABC Test
- Court Holds California Law Applies to Offshore Workers on Oil Platforms
Popular Categories
- (43)
- (40)
- (135)
- (22)
- (6)
- (6)
- (31)
- (26)
- (22)
- (14)
- (5)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (3)
- (14)
- (9)
- (2)
- (2)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Christopher S. Andre
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Alicia A. Belock
- Eddy R. Beltran
- Rex Darrell Berry
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Alfonso Estrada
- Lauren D. Fierro
- Paul S. Fleck
- Robert Fried
- L. Brent Garrett
- Carol A. Gefis
- Kieran D. Hartley
- Amber S. Healy
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Michael J. Morphew
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Justin R. Peters
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Lauren B. Shelby
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Ethan G. Solove
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
- Kimberley A. Worley
- Lisa C. Zaradich
Archives
2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011