> the specific rule in California labor law mentions the 5 hour requirement.
You're not wrong here.
> This means Employees are basically required to take the meal break before 5 hours
I don't think this characterization is supported, though. For one, the law only applies to non-exempt (usually: non-salaried) employees, and for another, case law (typically citing Brinker) consistently holds that the employer is not required to enforce that the employee takes the full meal break at the appropriate time, merely that the employer provide opportunity to do so. The actual opinion from Brinker states:
> Specifically, we conclude that (1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; (2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; (3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; (4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and (5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so.
Yeah you're right here, but its up to the employer to keep good enough records to defend themselves in such a case, even if they are in the right its is often easier to settle considering the chance of loosing anyway and going to court.
There are even stranger violations, apparently asking people to take covid tests before coming to work during the pandemic is a potential violation, and making an typo on paychecks is one I read in an article, even if the typo had no harm.
You're not wrong here.
> This means Employees are basically required to take the meal break before 5 hours
I don't think this characterization is supported, though. For one, the law only applies to non-exempt (usually: non-salaried) employees, and for another, case law (typically citing Brinker) consistently holds that the employer is not required to enforce that the employee takes the full meal break at the appropriate time, merely that the employer provide opportunity to do so. The actual opinion from Brinker states:
> Specifically, we conclude that (1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; (2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; (3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; (4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and (5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so.
https://casetext.com/case/brinker-restaurant-corp-v-superior...
One interesting application in case law that I found is that apparently being on-call during a meal break is sufficient to result in a violation.
https://casetext.com/analysis/california-supreme-court-no-on...