Washington Supreme Court Holds No Strict Liability Standard Exists For an Employee Meal Break Violation

Brady v. Autozone Stores, Inc. - Washington Supreme Court

Facts:  Michael Brady ("Brady") filed suit and sought unpaid wages for meal breaks that Autozone, his employer, allegedly withheld from employees.  After the case was removed to federal court, the district court held that employers have met their obligation under Washington law if they ensure employees have the opportunity for a meaningful meal break, free from coercion or any other impediment.  Consequently, the district court held that Washington had not adopted a strict liability approach to the taking of meal breaks and therefore class certification would be improper given the unique fact scenarios associated with each potential violation of Washington's meal break statute.

Brady subsequently sought to certify two questions to the Washington Supreme Court:  1) Is an employer strictly liable under Washington's meal break statute?; and 2) If an employer is not strictly liable under this statute, does the employee carry the burden to prove his employer did not permit the employee an opportunity to take a meaningful break?

Holding:  The Washington Supreme Court began its analysis of the certified questions with a review of the Washington meal break statute, WAC 296-126-092.  Of note, employees may choose to waive their meal period, although the Department of Labor and Industries issued a policy statement on the statute and recommend employers obtain a "written request" from an employee that chooses to waive their meal period.  Consequently, under the first certified question, because an employee may waive their meal break, an employer is not automatically liable if a meal break is missed (thus strict liability does not apply).

In regard to the second certified question, the Court examined the burden of proof for an employee to establish a violation of WAC 296-126-092.  Brady pointed the Court to a a 2011 Washington case that lends itself to the argument that WAC 296-126-092 imposes a mandatory obligation on the employer to provide meal and rest breaks and to ensure the breaks comply with the statute.  Autozone countered with a 2012 California Supreme Court case which addressed a comparable provision to WAC 296-126-092.  In that case, the California Supreme Court held that an employer's obligation is only to provide a meal period to employees by offering them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted break.  However, in this case, the Court was unswayed by Autozone's argument and held that Brady's approach (and case) was more in tune with Washington caselaw and provided greater protection for workers.  

As a result, an employee that asserts a meal break violation under WAC 296-126-092 can meet his/her prima facie burden of proof by providing evidence that he/she did not receive a timely meal break.  The employer can rebut this by showing that no violation occurred or a valid waiver exists.  (This "burden" on the employer was not found to be onerous as the employer would already be keeping track of the employee's time for payroll purposes.)

Judgment:  In response to the two certified questions, the Washington Supreme Court held that while strict liability does not exist when a meal break is missed under WAC 296-126-092, an employee can establish his/her prima facie case by providing evidence that he/she did not receive a timely meal break (with the burden shifting back to the employer to rebut by showing no violation occurred or a valid waiver exists.)

The Takeaway:  It has been some time since I have come across a meal break/rest break case that I wanted to highlight.  This one was notable in part because of the Court's seamless analysis of the two certified questions.  I think the Court was correct to not impose a strict liability standard when a meal break is missed.  While the Court noted its deference to employee rights, because Washington allows for an employee to waive their right to a meal break, imposing a strict liability standard would likely be taking things a step too far.  

With that being said, the Court did recognize a somewhat relaxed burden of proof for an employee to establish its prima facie case.  Allowing an employee to initially establish the validity of their WAC 296-126-092 claim by simply showing they did not receive a timely meal break will likely allow many of these claims to proceed ahead (at least at the outset).  As well, the burden shifting over to the employer does not appear to be an insurmountable hurdle either.  As the Court pointed out, employers are already tracking an employee's time and work hours for payroll purposes, so they should already be maintaining documents to rebut any alleged violation by an employee.  Of course, having a written waiver of the meal break by an employee is recommended (if not strongly encouraged) as memories can fade over time or versions of a particular event/conversation can change.  Having a waiver in writing is often key for an employer to protect themselves in the event a dispute arises over an alleged meal break violation.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Madsen

Date:  June 29, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/BradyAutozone062917.pdf