Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2012 WL 3579567 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)

Rogelio Hernandez appealed from the order denying his motion for class certification and granting Chipotle's motion to deny class certification as to his claims that Chipotle denied non-exempt employees their meal and rest breaks. Chipotle moved to deny class certification on the ground that it had met its responsibility under California law to provide (i.e., to authorize and permit) employees to take meal and rest breaks. Hernandez contended that while an employer need only provide employees with rest breaks, it must ensure that employees take their meal breaks. Relying upon the California Supreme Court's opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), the court held that an employer need only provide not ensure meal and rest breaks and that the trial court had properly denied class certification. See also Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, 2012 WL 3587610 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (same); Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp., 2012 WL 3711553 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (employment recruiters were properly classified as exempt commissioned employees and were properly provided meal and rest breaks).