California Supreme Court issues important decision regarding meal period liability

In Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court addressed two important issues: 1) the application of rounding policies to meal periods, and 2) the burden of proof in determining whether a shortened or missed meal period was the result of the employer or the employee's action.

In Donohue, the employer's rounding policy, when applied to meal periods, could result in the employee taking a lunch of less than 30 minutes but not receiving a meal period premium. Similarly, an employee who took their lunch after the fifth hour, but within the rounding period, would have their lunch start time rounded to start before the fifth hour ended, again with no meal period premium paid. On that basis, the Court unanimously held "employers cannot engage in the practice of rounding time punches—that is, adjusting the hours that an employee has actually worked to the nearest preset time increment—in the meal period context." Interestingly, in so holding, the Court also stated, "[a]s technology continues to evolve, the practical advantages of rounding policies may diminish further." So will the Court revisit the general application of rounding policies in the future? Only time will tell.

The Court also addressed the burden of proof in meal period premium actions. Almost a decade ago in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that an "employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed." An employer satisfies its obligation to provide a meal period "if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break." But practically speaking, if the timecard shows an employee took a shortened meal period, how is a court to determine whether the meal period was shortened due to the employer, or due to an employee's personal choice? In Donohue, the Court held that the "time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations." The employer can rebut this presumption by presenting evidence of payment of meal period premiums or evidence the employee was provided their compliant meal period but chose to voluntarily work through part, or all, of it.