The case involves Brinker International, the parent company of restaurant chains like Chili's. And it deals with whether a business must require its workers to take the breaks mandated by California law - or simply make those breaks available. Attorney Michael Rubin argued for several employees who said they regularly skipped meal and rest breaks against their will.
Rubin: "Because there was pressure not to give up tips - workers were pressured not to take the first or the second rest break during busy times."
But Brinker's attorney Rex Heinke warned against creating an unrealistic burden on businesses. Here's his response to a question from Justice Joyce Kennard:
Kennard: "You would like to see
some flexibility. And as I see it, that's what the big fight
Heinke: "That is precisely what the fight is about."
The court has 90 days to issue its ruling.