Cinemusip, Attorneys & Counselors at Law

Calif high court hears debate over worker breaks

The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a high-interest case contending restaurant managers must order meal and rest breaks for tens of thousands of workers rather than leave compliance to their discretion.

The case was initially filed eight years ago against Brinker International, the parent company of Chili’s and other eateries, by chain restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.

The case has generated immense interest among labor-law lawyers and a variety of industries grappling with defining responsibilities for meal and rest periods.

Lawyers for the workers argue that not ordering the breaks is a passive way to take advantage of workers who don’t want to leave colleagues at busy times.

Brinker’s attorney countered that requiring businesses to control the breaks of workers is unmanageable and that taking such breaks should be left to the discretion of employees.

The court’s decision is due in 90 days, with the resolution possibly worth millions of dollars to lawyers and companies enmeshed in class-action lawsuits hinging on the issue.

Federal court rejects Texas redistricting maps

Texas cannot proceed with elections under new redistricting maps without a trial, a Washington-based federal court ruled Tuesday, saying the state used an inadequate analysis to determine whether new districts discriminate against minorities.

In a brief ruling, the court agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice that the GOP-led Legislature used an improper standard for measuring minority voting strength. The order clears the way for a trial and all but guarantees the 2012 elections will be conducted with temporary, court-drawn maps.

The temporary maps, being drawn by a San Antonio court, are expected to boost Democratic efforts to regain control over Congress. That’s because the maps will likely protect minority seats and provide a lifeline to at least one Democratic incumbent who had been imperiled.

The San Antonio court, considering a parallel legal fight over the maps, already has pushed back the start of the candidate filing period to Nov. 28.

The legal fight centers around a requirement in the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act that certain states with a history of discrimination, including Texas, be granted “preclearance” before changes in voting practices can be enacted.

The legal standard is whether proposed changes have the purpose or effect of diminishing voting rights based on race or color.

The Justice Department contends Texas’ legislative and congressional maps are retrogressive, meaning minority voters’ ability to elect their candidates of choice is diminished.