In a long-awaited ruling that could put the brakes on some wage and hour class actions in California, an appeals court has provided welcome guidance and relief to employers on their responsibility to provide meal breaks and pay for "off-the-clock" work.

The case involved a lawsuit filed on behalf of employees at 137 restaurants owned and operated by Brinker Restaurant Corp., including Chili's Grill & Bar, Romano's Macaroni Grill, and Maggiano's Little Italy. The suit charged that Brinker violated California law by not ensuring that workers took meal and rest breaks and by failing to compensate employees for any missed or shortened breaks. The suit also alleged that Brinker forced employees to work off the clock without pay.

The HR Management & Compliance Report: How To Comply with California Wage & Hour Law, explains everything you need to know to stay in compliance with the state's complex and ever-changing rules, laws, and regulations in this area. Coverage on bonuses, meal and rest breaks, overtime, alternative workweeks, final paychecks, and more.

In deciding that the lawsuit was improperly certified as a class action, a California appeals court has now ruled that:

• Employers must only make meal and rest periods available, but they do not have to ensure that breaks are taken. Employers may not impede, discourage, or dissuade employees from taking meal or rest breaks.

• While employers must authorize and permit employees to take rest breaks every four hours (or major fraction thereof), the break does not have to be in the middle of the work period if it would be impracticable to do so.

• Employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked, and the practice of "early lunching"—which can result in an employee working more than five consecutive hours without a second meal break—is not prohibited.

• Employers can be held liable for employees working off the clock only if the employer knew or should have known that the employee was doing so.

Based on these holdings, the appeals court decided that the case couldn't go forward as a class action. In particular, because breaks must only be made available and not ensured, determining why a particular employee missed meal and rest breaks involved individual inquiries. The off-the-clock claims, too, weren't amenable to class treatment because whether an employee was illegally required to work off the clock involved individual questions as to whether, in that particular instance, Brinker knew or should have known that the employee was working off clock or improperly changed time records.

Read the opinion.