Plaintiff was hired by Aerotek, a staffing agency, to work for Bay Bread.  This decision affirms a summary judgment in Aerotek’s favor on plaintiff’s claims it denied her meal breaks required by Lab. Code 226.7 and Wage Order No. 7.  Aerotek’s evidence on summary judgment showed that (a) it adopted a legally compliant meal break policy, (b) it trained its new employees in the policy and told them to notify Aerotek if they were denied the meal breaks the policy allowed, and (c) entered into a contract with Bay Bread requiring Bay Bread to obey all applicable state and federal laws in relation to the work performed under the contract.  Also, plaintiff admitted she had no evidence to show Aerotek took any action to prevent her from taking meal breaks.  Aerotek was not required to investigate whether Bay Bread was complying with meal break requirements, nor is Aerotek vicariously liable for any violation by Bay Bread even if they are treated as plaintiff’s joint employers.  Both joint employers owe a duty to allow meal breaks, but each is liable only for its own actions that violate that legal requirement.

California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1 (Humes, P.J.); March 9, 2018 (published March 21, 2018); 2018 WL 1223989