Legal News

Federal judge refuses to certify meal, rest period class action against McDonalds

By Jason Siegel

In one of the first cases to cite a recent California appellate decision involving employee meal and rest periods, a federal judge in Los Angeles has refused to certify a class of about 45,000 workers at McDonald's Corp. who allege they were deprived of such breaks.

The case alleges that McDonald's, which has 158 restaurants in California, owes compensation to its current and former nonexempt employees because the chain violated state law by failing to provide meal and rest breaks, as well as overtime. Deanna M. Kimoto v. McDonalds Corp. et al., No. 2:06-cv-03032 (C.D. Calif.). The suit also claims that McDonald's maintained inaccurate wage statements.

McDonald's had filed a motion to deny class certification.

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, of the Central District of California, relied on the recent decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th (July 22, 2008), which reversed a class certification order in a separate wage and hour case. In that ruling, the judge held that individual circumstances predominate since an employer must make meal and rest periods available but is not obligated to ensure that employees take those breaks.

A lawyer for McDonald's, Michael Gray, a partner in the Chicago office of Jones Day, did not return a request for comment. Jennifer Conner, a lawyer at Long Beach, Calif.-based Westrup Klick, who represents the plaintiffs, did not return a call for comment.

-- Amanda Bronstad

Full post as published by Legal Pad | LA on September 02, 2008 (boomark / email).