Post-Brinker Class Certification Decisions – Where are they now?

by Orrick - Global Employment Law Group

[authors:, , ]

Brinker continues to impact meal and rest period and off-the-clock cases as lower courts continue to grapple with the contours of its application. Several cases at the appellate level were remanded after the California Supreme Court’s Brinker decision, and those cases are now working their way through the lower courts. On our July 6, 2012 blog post, we identified three post-Brinker decisions denying class certification in meal period cases. Below is a brief summary of post-Brinker decisions issued since our last update.

Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. B216004 (Cal. App. Aug. 21, 2012). Affirming  the trial court’s denial of class certification under California CCP § 382 for hourly workers at Chipotle restaurants, the appellate court opined that plaintiff’s claims for missed meal and rest breaks were not suitable for class treatment. Chipotle preemptively moved to deny class certification, contending that it had provided breaks as required by California law. The defendant also argued that it paid employees through meal breaks, so employees did not necessarily have an incentive to accurately record when they took their meal breaks. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that defendant had not adequately ensured that its employees took breaks, and on that basis was liable for any missed breaks. Both prior to and following Brinker, the trial court, and then the court of appeal, disagreed with plaintiff. First, the court determined that the defendant only had a responsibility to authorize and permit rest breaks, and to provide meal breaks, rather than ensure they were taken. Defendant’s declarations demonstrated that there were employees who were authorized and permitted to take rest breaks, and who were provided meal breaks. Plaintiff’s evidence showed that some employees had missed breaks. Given the differences in the experience of the putative class members, there was no “universal practice” with regard to breaks. The court of appeal agreed with the trial court’s determination that plaintiff would be required to present a restaurant-by-restaurant and perhaps supervisor-by-supervisor analysis of break policies and practices at trial. The only common company-wide policy or practice was defendant’s evidence that it provided employees with meal and rest breaks as required by law. The court also agreed with the trial court’s finding that substantial evidence of a conflict of interest existed, because putative class members were able to move in or out of supervisory roles with the responsibility of providing meal and rest breaks for themselves and other employees on shift. Therefore, some putative class members may accuse other supervisory putative class members of violating their meal and rest period rights. This scenario created the likelihood that some class members might be called to testify against other class members, which demonstrated “antagonism of so substantial a degree as to defeat the purpose of class certification.” The originally unpublished decision was subsequently published by the court on August 30, 2012.

Flores v. Lamps Plus, No. B220954 (Cal. App. Aug. 21, 2012). Finding that its original decision in this case was consistent with Brinker, the appellate court again affirmed the trial court’s denial of class certification of employee meal and rest break claims brought against the retail lighting chain. In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, the appellate court agreed that individual issues predominated over common issues as to the meal and rest period claims. The court noted that the depositions, questionnaire responses, and declarations of the proposed class members demonstrated that the company did not have a companywide practice of denying breaks to its employees. Indeed, the breadth of alleged violations was widely variable, with some workers reporting that they often missed breaks, others saying they always took them, and others saying they took one or the other but not both. In fact, “the only evidence of a companywide policy and practice was the evidence that Lamps Plus had a policy to provide employees with meal and rest breaks as required by law, and that employees were disciplined for failing to conform to that policy.” Given the variation in experiences, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s determination that the proposed class did not show a common practice or policy. The court also rejected plaintiff’s unsupported theory that chronic understaffing led to class-wide violations of the meal and rest period laws.

Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc., No. B200513 (Cal. App. Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished). Affirming the trial court’s order granting defendant summary adjudication, the court rejected plaintiff’s theory that defendant was under an obligation to ensure that all employees took meal and rest breaks. The court found that defendant produced substantial evidence that it provided meal breaks to plaintiff and other employees, as required by California law. Defendant showed that it had a written meal and rest break policy, plaintiff and other managers were aware of the policy, defendant reprimanded employees for not taking meal periods, and defendant advised plaintiff and others at a meeting that they were required to take meal and rest breaks. Defendant also produced declarations from 21 managers who reported that they were allowed to take meal periods at their own discretion. On the other hand, plaintiff produced no admissible evidence that he or other meal period subclass members were denied an opportunity to take meal breaks, or were otherwise precluded by defendant from taking breaks. As for plaintiff’s Labor Code § 226 claim, the court also found that an employer cannot be liable for misstatements on paystubs unless it knowingly and intentionally makes such misstatements and an employee suffers injury as a result. Defendant filed a declaration stating that the paystub misstatement was inadvertent and, when discovered, corrected. Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of knowing or intentional conduct by defendant, with the result that he could therefore not establish an essential element of his claim.

Decisions Still Pending:

The California Supreme Court granted review in other class certification decisions involving meal and rest period claims, and has subsequently remanded these cases with instructions to review in light of its decision in Brinker. To date, these cases are still pending. See Tien v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc., Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc., Bradley v. Networkers Int’l LLC, and Brookler v. Radioshack Corp.


Written by:

Orrick - Global Employment Law Group

Orrick - Global Employment Law Group on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.