In rejecting the plaintiff's argument that employers are obligated to ensure employees take meal periods and rest breaks, the court relied on several recent federal court decisions. The court turned to Brown v. Federal Express Corp., (C.D. Cal 2008) 249 F.R.D. 580, 585, where the court noted, "[t]he word 'provide' means 'to supply or make available.' It does not suggest any obligation to ensure that employees take advantage of what is made available to them." The court also used the reasoning in White v. Starbucks Corp., (N.D. Cal. 2007) 497 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1089, which also rejected the plaintiff's similar claim, noting that it would be impossible for employers with large work forces to enforce such breaks. Relying on these federal cases, the Brinkley court held that the defendant met its burden with respect to the meal and rest period causes of action by providing substantial evidence that such breaks were made available to employees.
While the court?s ruling in Brinkley is currently good law, the California Supreme Court's recent grant of review of Brinker v. Superior Court, (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 25, means that Brinkley may also be taken up for review through a "grant and hold" order given the similarities between the two cases.

Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc., (2008) ___ Cal. App. 4th ___.

Back to main