Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against E.M.E. for violations of state labor laws. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and then granted summary judgment for E.M.E. on plaintiff's claims, which relied on Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. The court concluded, however, that summary judgment was incorrectly granted with respect to plaintiffs claims relating to rest breaks, as Brinker explained that under the applicable wage order provision, rest breaks in an eight-hour shift should fall on either side of the meal break, absent factors rendering such scheduling impracticable. In this case, section 12(A) of Wage Order 1-2001 obliged E.M.E. to provide a 10-minute rest break in the middle of the work periods occurring before and after the 30-minute meal break “insofar as practicable.” Therefore, there are triable issues regarding whether the rest break schedule stated in the wage order was not practicable. Because summary adjudication was improperly granted with respect to plaintiff’s rest break claim, it was also improperly granted with respect to the derivative claims. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to those claims. The court affirmed with respect to plaintiff's first cause of action. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc." on Justia Law