Hale

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMANDA HALE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09978-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. CLASS CERTIFICATION

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., et Re: Dkt. No. 89 al., Defendants.

The primary issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs, who used to work at the defendant’s restaurants in California, can represent a class of all such workers in their claim that the defendant unlawfully prevented them from taking unpaid 30-minute meal breaks. The answer is no. Under California law, if the employer’s time records suggest that employees did not receive unpaid meal breaks, this creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer is liable for violating meal break requirements. The employer can then rebut the presumption at trial by proving that employees voluntarily skipped their unpaid meal breaks despite having an opportunity to take them. In this case, the time records suggest that employees typically did not take meal breaks, so it appears that the presumption will apply and the employer will be required to rebut it at trial. At times, the plaintiffs seem to take the view that the mere…