Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court

(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004

An employer who provides the opportunity for an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period has complied — even if employees voluntarily worked through. But Donohue’s rebuttable presumption shifted the practical burden substantially.

Holding

An employer satisfies its meal period obligation when it relieves employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities, permits a reasonable opportunity for an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from taking it. The employer need not police breaks or ensure no work is performed. First meal by end of fifth hour; second by end of tenth hour. Rejected the 'rolling five-hour' theory.

Impact on Defense Practice

The foundational meal period decision. Doctrinally, Brinker means an employer with a compliant written policy who can show employees were free to take breaks has a complete defense — even if some employees voluntarily worked through meals. But Donohue's rebuttable presumption significantly shifted the practical burden: records showing noncompliant meals now shift the burden to the employer to prove compliance was offered. The 'provide not ensure' standard remains the anchor, but post-Donohue, the proof burden is substantially higher in practice.

Defense Strategy

Build the defense in layers: (1) compliant written policy distributed with acknowledgments, (2) electronic attestation system capturing employee confirmation that breaks were provided, (3) supervisor training records demonstrating the policy was communicated and enforced, (4) proactive premium payment when records show short or missed meals. Brinker supplies the legal standard; the documentation supplies the evidence to meet it.

This analysis is for informational purposes only. Case law is current as of Q1 2026.