In some U. S. states, such as the state of California, meal breaks are legally mandated. Penalties can be severe for failing to adequately staff one's business premises so that all employees can rotate through their mandatory meal and rest breaks. For example, on April 16, 2007, the Supreme Court of California unanimously affirmed a trial court judgment requiring Kenneth Cole Productions to pay an additional hour of pay for each day that a store manager had been forced to work a nine-hour shift without a break. On April 12, 2012 the Supreme Court of California issued its long-awaited opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. , et al. v. Superior Court. , which addressed a number of issues that have been the subject of much litigation in California for many years. The California Supreme court ruled that employers satisfy their California Labor Code section 512 obligation to "provide" meal periods to nonexempt employees by (1) relieving employees of all duty; (2) relinquishing control over their activities and permitting them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break; and (3) not impeding or discouraging them from doing so. Importantly, the court agreed that employers are not obliged to "police" meal breaks to ensure that no work is performed. Even if an employee chooses to work during a properly provided meal period, an employer will not be liable for any premium pay, and will only be liable to pay for the time worked during a meal period so long as the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was working during the meal period.