Cozymel‟s Mexican Grill, and On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina.
Nameplaintiffs Adam Hohnbaum, Illya Haase, Romeo Osorio, Amanda June Rader, andSantana Alvarado (collectively Hohnbaum) are or were hourly nonexempt
employees at one or more of Brinker‟s restaurants.
State law obligates employers to afford their nonexempt employees mealperiods and rest periods during the workday. (See Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 512; IWCwage order No. 5-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11050); hereafter Wage OrderNo. 5.)
Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (a)
prohibits an employer from
requiring an employee “
to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an
applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.” In turn, Wage Order
No. 5, subdivision 12 prescribes rest periods, while subdivision 11, as well assection 512 of the Labor Code, prescribes meal periods. Employers who violatethese requirements must pay premium wages. (§ 226.7, subd. (b); Wage OrderNo. 5, subds. 11(B), 12(B); see
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
,40 Cal.4th at p. 1114.)In 2002, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) launched aninvestigation into whether Brinker was complying with its obligations to providerest and meal breaks, maintain proper records, and pay premium wages in theevent required breaks were not provided. The DLSE filed suit and eventually
settled in exchange for Brinker‟s pa
yment of $10 million to redress injuries
The IWC issues wage orders on an industry-by-industry basis. (
(2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 57.) Wage Order No. 5 governs restaurantemployees, inter alia, while other wage orders impose similar meal and rest periodrequirements for all other nonexempt employees in California. (See generally Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11010-11170.)
All further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwisespecified.