Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
273 P.3d 513 (2012)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Adam Hohnbaum (plaintiff) sought to certify a class action on behalf of hourly, nonexempt employees of Brinker Restaurant Corporation (Brinker) (defendant). Hohnbaum alleged that Brinker failed to provide these employees with meal and rest breaks as required by California law. Specifically, Hohnbaum alleged that Brinker allowed the employees fewer breaks than required by law and sometimes required them to take a single break near the beginning of a shift, followed by as many as eight or more hours of work without an additional meal or rest period. Brinker also had a policy of allowing breaks only for every four hours worked. The trial court certified a class to adjudicate common questions regarding the meal and rest periods. The California Court of Appeal reversed the class certification, and Hohnbaum appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Werdegar, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
