Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

• Citation: 162 Lab.Cas. P 61243,18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1852,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3976,139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315,53 Cal.4th 1004,273 P.3d 513
• Decision Date: 12 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. S166350.,S166350.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Diego County, Respondent;Adam Hohnbaum et al., Real Parties in Interest.

12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3976

139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315

162 Lab.Cas. P 61,243

18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1852

273 P.3d 513

53 Cal.4th 1004

BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION et al., Petitioners,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT of San Diego County, Respondent;Adam Hohnbaum et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. S166350.

Supreme Court of California

April 12, 2012.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Los Angeles, Rex S. Heinke, Johanna R. Shargel; Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Karen J. Kubin; Hunton & Williams, Los Angeles, Laura M. Franze, M. Brett Burns and Susan J. Sandidge for Petitioners.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, Fred W. Alvarez and Michael D. Schlemmer for TechNet as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, Yi–Chin Ho, Michael M. Berger, Benjamin G. Shatz and Andrew L. Satenberg for Chinese Daily News, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.William B. Sailer; Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Paul Grossman, Los Angeles, Paul W. Cane, Jr., Katherine C. Huibonhoa and Rishi Sharma, San Francisco, for California Employment Law Council as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Julian W. Poon, Kirsten R. Galler, David S. Han, Blaine H. Evanson; National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Robin S. Conrad and Shane Brennan Kawka for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and California Chamber of Commerce as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Law Office of Robin L. Unander and Robin L. Unander for California Automotive Business Coalition as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Lawrence Foust; Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, Glendale, and Christine T. Hoeffner for Childrens Hospital Los Angeles as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Littler Mendelson, San Diego, Julie A. Dunne, Lena K. Sims, Matthew S. Dente, Richard H. Rahm and Allan G. King for the National Retail Federation, National Council of Chain Restaurants, Contain–A–Way, Inc., USA Waste of California, Inc., California Building Industry Association, California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors, Western Growers Association, American Staffing Association, California Hotel & Lodging Association and National Association of Manufacturers as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Mayer Brown, Palo Alto, and Donald M. Falk for the American Trucking Association, Inc., and the California Trucking Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Los Angeles, Richard J. Simmons, Julie A. Dunne and Guylyn R. Cummins for Employers Group, California Retailers Association, California Hospital Association, California Restaurant Association, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, National Council of Chain Restaurants and National Retail Federation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Fred J. Hiestand, Sacramento, for The Civil Justice Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Robert R. Roginson, Cerritos, for the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Jackson Lewis, San Francisco, Robert M. Pattison, Joel P. Kelly, JoAnna L. Brooks and Timothy C. Travelstead for San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, San Diego Chapter, Sacramento Chapter, Southern California Chapter and Employment and Labor Law Committee of the Association of Corporate Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Los Angeles, John S. Miller, Jr., and Dwayne P. McKenzie for the Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, San Diego, Lee Burdick and John Morris for the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.Greenberg Traurig, Irvine, Gregory F. Hurley and Stacey Herter for National Association of Theatre Owners of California/Nevada, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.No appearance for Respondent.Lorens & Associates, San Diego, L. Tracee Lorens, Robert D. Wilson III, Wayne A. Hughes; Cohelan & Khoury, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Timothy D. Cohelan, Michael D. Singer, San Diego, Christopher A. Olsen; The Turley Law Firm, William Turley, David Mara; Furth, Lehmann & Grant, Furth Lehmann, The Furth Firm, Frederick P. Furth, San Francisco, Jessica L. Grant; Schubert & Reed, Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec, San Francisco, The Kralowec Law Group, Robert C. Schubert, Kimberly A. Kralowec; Altshuler Berzon, San Francisco, and Michael Rubin for Real Parties in Interest.Law Offices of Ian Herzog and Ian Herzog, Santa Monica, for Morry Brookler and the Putative Brookler Class as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.

Law Offices of Carroll & Scully, San Francisco, Donald C. Carroll and Charles P. Scully II for California Labor Federation, AFL–CIO as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Bryan Schwartz Law, Oakland, Bryan Schwartz; Arbogast & Berns and David M. Arbogast, Los Angeles, for California Employment Lawyers Association and Consumer Attorneys of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Brad Seligman for the Impact Fund, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Equal Rights Advocates, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Public Advocates and Women's Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Pope, Berger & Williams, San Diego, and Timothy G. Williams for Gelasio Salazar and Saad Shammas as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Clare Pastore, Los Angeles, and Kevin Kish for Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Centro Legal de La Raza, La Raza Centro Legal, Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center, Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, National Employment Law Project, Stanford Community Law Clinic and Wage Justice Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Locker Folberg, Miles E. Locker, San Francisco; Broad & Gusman and Barry Broad, Sacramento, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, David A. Rosenfeld, William A. Sokol, Theodore Franklin and Patricia M. Gates for Alameda County Central Labor Council, Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local Union No. 3, California Conference of Machinists, Communications Workers of America, Contra Costa County Central Labor Council, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, South Bay Central Labor Council and United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 5 as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Michael L. Smith, San Francisco, Lora Jo Foo and Danielle A. Lucido for Worksafe Law Center, La Raza Centro Legal, Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center, Southern California Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health and Watsonville Law Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Altshuler Berzon, San Francisco, Michael Rubin, James M. Finberg, Eve Cervantez and Danielle E. Leonard for Rogelio Hernandez as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.Cynthia L. Rice, Santa Rosa, Jennifer Ambacher; Brad Seligman, Berkeley, Julia Campins, Oakland; Julie Su; Irma Herrera; Donna Ryu; Margaret Prado–Alvarez, Matthew Goldberg, San Francisco; Anamaria Loya; D. Michael Dale; and Marci Seville for California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, the Impact Fund, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Employee Rights Center, Equal Rights Advocates, Hastings Civil Justice Clinic, Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center, Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center, La Raza Centro Legal, Northwest Workers' Justice Project and Women's Employment Rights Clinic as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.

WERDEGAR, J.

For the better part of a century, California law has guaranteed to employees wage and hour protection, including meal and rest periods intended to ameliorate the consequences of long hours. For most of that time, only injunctive remedies were available for violations of meal and rest period guarantees. In 2000, however, both the Legislature and the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) adopted for the first time monetary remedies for the denial of meal and rest breaks. ( Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1105–1106, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 155 P.3d 284.) These remedies engendered a wave of wage and hour class action litigation, including the instant suit in which the trial court granted class certification and the Court of Appeal then issued writ relief and ordered three subclasses decertified.

We granted review to consider issues of significance to class actions generally and to meal and rest break class actions in particular. We conclude, contrary to the Court of Appeal, that trial courts are not obligated as a matter of law to resolve threshold disputes over the elements of a plaintiff's claims, unless a particular determination is necessarily dispositive of the certification question. Because the parties have so requested, however, we nevertheless address several such threshold disputes here. On the most contentious of these, the nature of an employer's duty to provide meal periods, we conclude an employer's obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desires, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.

On the ultimate question of class certification, we review the trial court's ruling for abuse of discretion. In light of the substantial evidence submitted by plaintiffs of defendants' uniform policy, we conclude the trial court properly...