Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1278 (2008)
Fred Brinkley, a property manager for Public Storage, asserted class action and individual claims for violations of Labor Code § 226 (requiring accuracy of paystubs) and § 226.7 (meal and rest period requirements). The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the employer on these claims, which the Court of Appeal affirmed. With respect to the alleged paystub violations, the Court held that although there was an erroneous rate of pay (for mileage) included on the paystubs, the error was corrected and none of the employees suffered any injury as a result of the error. With respect to the allegedly unpaid meal periods, the employer had not violated Section 226.7 because it was able to establish it had made meal periods available to employees. The Court rejected Brinkley’s assertion that an employer must ensure (and not just make available) the required meal and rest periods. Cf. Lee v. Dynamex, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1325 (2008) (order denying class certification is reversed because trial court improperly denied plaintiff’s motion to compel employer to identify and provide contact information for potential putative class members).