Wage Law

Before it becomes even more irrelevant, here's a list we compiled of commentary about Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 25:

• Brinker International simply announced it as a "Favorable Ruling From California Court of Appeal"
• Shaw Valenza blogged: Brinker: The Watershed Meal Period Decision Comes Down
• The UCL Practitioner quoted from the Recorder: "Workers Can't Catch a Break from Calif. Court"
• and then published this analysis: REST BREAK AND MEAL PERIOD CLAIMS AFTER MURPHY V. KENNETH COLE PRODUCTIONS.
• Cal Labor Law blogged about "Brinker Court Favorably Resolves Dispute on "Providing" Meal Breaks"
• Storm was his usual cautious self with: Brinker: Not So Fast
• California Workforce Resource blogged about how there were Meal and Rest Break Requirements Clarified By Court in Brinker v. Hohnbaum
• The Complex Litigator had Meal break class actions dealt major blow in Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. Hohnbaum, et al.
• The Retail Law Observer had a post titled after the case name.
• Class Action Defense chimed in with the long title: Labor Law Class Action Defense Cases–Brinker v. Superior Court: California Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court Order Certifying Labor Law Class Action Holding Employers Need Not “Ensure” Employees Take Meal And Rest Breaks
• First Mediation's blog had this: The Clock is Ticking … The Future of Meal and Rest Break Class Actions Remains to be Seen
• Sheppard Mullin wrote: Appellate Court Clarifies Meal and Rest Period Obligations
• Crowell Moring published this alert: Anxiously-Awaited Brinker Decision Holds That Employers Need Not Police Whether Employees Take Meal Periods
• Mofo was quiet, for obvious reasons. They said what they had to say in a lunch seminar.
• Ford Harrison issued a Legal Alert: California Court of Appeal Clarifies Meal and Rest Period Requirements for California Employees
• Wilson Sonsini put out a WSGR alert: California Appellate Court Clarifies Employers' Obligations Regarding Meal Period and Rest Breaks
• Littler told us how they really felt with: A Ray of Hope: California Court of Appeal Decides Compliance with Meal Period Obligations Requires an Opportunity, Not a Guarantee
• Gibson Dunn wrote: State Court of Appeal Holds That California Employers Need Only "Provide" Meal Periods, Not Ensure That Employees Take Them
• Jones Day had: ALERT: California Appellate Court Holds that Meal Periods Must be Made Available to Employees; California Labor Commissioner Follows Suit
• Nixon Peabody published this pdf: A major break for California employers: Court rules on longstanding meal and rest period issues.
• McGuire Woods published New Major Decision Holds California Meal Period, Rest Period, Off-The-Clock And “Time Shaving” Wage Claims “Not Amenable To Class Treatment”
• Seyfarth Shaw wrote: Court Provides Better Meal Deal For California Employers

If we didn't include your blog or firm alert on this list, you need to read up on Google's search algorithms.