Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Ct. (Hohnbaum)

On the heels of its long-awaited decision in Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), No. S166350, the California Supreme Court this week issued another important wage and hour decision that favors employers. In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (Liu), No. S185827, the court ruled that neither employees nor employers can recover attorney’s fees as prevailing parties on claims for meal and rest period violations. This is a key victory for California employers that routinely are subject to “one-way” statutes requiring them to pay attorneys’ fees to prevailing plaintiffs, but rarely, if ever, permitting employers to obtain such fees when they prevail. Continue Reading Another Employer Victory in California: Attorney’s Fees for Meal and Rest Period Claims Not Recoverable in California

This post was also written by Seth C. Carmack.

On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme  Court issued its long-awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Ct. (Hohnbaum), No. S166350. The decision clarified several important issues regarding California employers’ obligations in connection with meal and rest breaks for non-exempt employees. It also offered guidance regarding the certification of meal and rest period wage and hour class actions.Continue Reading Back from the Brink: California Employers Finally Get Clarity on Meal/Rest Breaks