Hospital Nurse Cannot Go Forward with Meal and Rest Period Claims

A registered nurse who sued the hospital where she had worked for failure to provide meal and rest periods, among other claims, could not go forward with her lawsuit, a California appellate court ruled. The trial court was correct in dismissing the lawsuit before trial because there was no evidence that the hospital had not complied with state law regarding meal and rest breaks, the court said.

Law Regarding Meal and Rest Periods

The court first reviewed state law regarding meal and rest periods, noting that employers in California must provide their nonexempt employees meal periods during the workday and that an employer satisfies this obligation if it:

• Relieves its employees of all duty during these periods.
• Relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break.
• Does not impede or discourage employees from taking the break.

The employer is not obligated to police meal breaks or to ensure that no work is performed during the breaks, the court said. Further, a missed meal break does not constitute a violation if the employee waived the meal break or otherwise voluntarily shortened or postponed it.

As to rest breaks, the employer must authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods at the rate of 10 minutes of rest for each four hours the employee works, the court noted.

[Looking for state-specific information? See State & Local Updates]

The court then concluded that the hospital provided both meal and rest breaks as required by law. The hospital provided one meal period for every five hours of work and a second meal period for those who worked more than 10 hours. The plaintiff, who worked a 12-hour shift, had waived her second meal period, the court said.

The plaintiff, in a pretrial deposition, said that a break nurse or a charge nurse relieved her for meal periods and that she always received a meal break by the end of her shift. The plaintiff did not recall missing a meal period or notifying a supervisor about a missed meal period. She could not remember a supervisor interrupting her meal periods with work-related questions or requests.

The plaintiff's supervisors never told her to end a meal break early, and she was never discouraged from taking a meal break. Together, this evidence established that the hospital provided meal breaks required by law, the court said.

The court also concluded that the hospital provided rest breaks as required by law. Hospital employees received a 15-minute rest period for every four hours of work. At her deposition, the plaintiff admitted that her supervisors did not discourage her from taking rest breaks; she acknowledged that her supervisors did not tell her to cut her breaks short.

The plaintiff could not remember a supervisor interrupting her rest periods with work-related questions or requests. When the plaintiff's co-workers asked her questions, the plaintiff told them she was on a break and they left her alone. The plaintiff did not recall complaining to a supervisor about rest periods.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claim that she had been denied legally required rest periods because, while she was on her breaks, charge nurses looked at the clock, which she interpreted as a signal to cut her breaks short.

This does not, the court said, support the plaintiff's claim that she was pressured to end her breaks early, particularly in light of her specific deposition testimony that a supervisor never told her to end her break early, never discouraged her from taking a break and never told her to work while she was taking a break.

A supervisor's glance at a clock does not constitute coercion or pressure sufficient to undermine a formal policy of providing meal and rest breaks, the court concluded.

David v. Queen of The Valley Medical Center, Calif. Ct. App., No. A157336 (June 8, 2010).

Professional Pointer: If the nurse had any evidence that her supervisors actively discouraged her from taking breaks or encouraged her to cut her breaks short, the outcome of this case might have been different. The court said, however, that the employee's subjective belief that the supervisors wanted her to cut short her break was not enough to establish that her employer was not providing the breaks required by law.

Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer in Annapolis, Md.