Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), No. S166360, 2012 WL 1216356 (Cal., April 12, 2012) likely will be remembered as the case in which the California Supreme Court gave welcome relief to a certain kind of California employment class action. If that were all Brinker accomplished, it would stand as a remarkable achievement. But Brinker also holds lessons for class action defendants generally. These are our “Cliff Notes” on the Brinker tutorial.

THE EMPLOYMENT HOLDING AS STARTING POINT

Most of the 54-page unanimous decision concerns itself with employment-related questions, which we leave for others. For our purposes—Brinker’s effect on California class action cases generally—we start with the “Meal Period” holding.

California law requires employers to provide meal periods to nonexempt employees. But must the employer merely make them available, or must it “ensure” that employees actually take them, on pain of suffering stiff penalties if they do not? That was the important “merits” issue facing the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave this sensible answer: employers do not have to police their employees to make sure that they’re actually taking their meal breaks. It is enough that employers make meal periods available; they don’t have to “ensure” that employees take them.