• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Cabada Hameed LLP

Employment and Business Litigation Lawyers based in Southern California

  • Attorneys
    • Francisco Cabada
    • Sayema Hameed
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Law
    • Business Litigation
  • News & Information
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Attorneys
    • Francisco Cabada
    • Sayema Hameed
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Law
    • Business Litigation
  • News & Information
  • Contact Us
  • Search

California Companies Must Pay Premium For On-Call Rest Periods: Augustus v ABM Security Services, Inc.

The California Supreme Court recently held that California companies must pay for on-call rest periods. See Augustus-v.-ABM-Security 2016 WL 7407328 (Cal. Dec. 22, 2016)2016 WL 7407328 (2016) In Augustus, the plaintiffs, who worked as security guards at sites throughout California, alleged that ABM required guards to keep their radios and pagers on during rest periods. Guards were to remain “vigilant and responsive” to calls and alerts at all times. As a result, the guards alleged that they did not receive a duty-free rest period as prescribed by law.

During discovery, ABM acknowledged that guards were not relieved of all duties during rest periods and were often required to fulfill service requests. For example, upon receiving a notification while on break, guards were to escort tenants to their vehicles, notify building managers of maintenance issues, or respond to emergency service requests.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the guards and concluded that the company exercised great control over the guards while on their rest period. Such control was indistinguishable from normal work duties. For example, because guards were still subject to respond to service requests while on break, no break was in fact provided. Hence, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $90 million in damages, interest, and penalties.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that, although ABM did not relieve guards of all duties on rest periods, state law does not require employees to be relieved of all duties during rest periods and that being on call does not constitute performing work.

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s holding. The Supreme Court first addressed whether state law requires employers to provide off-duty rest periods (i.e., employee completely relived from work duties) in accordance with Wage Order 4, subdivision 12:

“Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods…․ Authorized rest period time shall be counted, as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.”

The Court concluded that the ordinary meaning of “rest” conveys the “opposite of work,” as supported by Labor Code section 226.7. The Court held that in regards to off-duty rest periods, employers must relieve employees of all of their duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time while on break.

In regards to on-call rest periods, the Court concluded that “one cannot square the practice of compelling employees to remain at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices, with the requirement to relieve employees of all work duties and employer control during 10-minute rest periods.” During on-call rest periods, employees must be relieved of their work duties and freed from employer control as to how they spend their time. The Court further held that an employer can reasonably reschedule a rest period when the need arises (i.e., emergency situations). Under such circumstances, an employer could pay a premium to employees for continued work or reschedule their break to a later time.

In closing, the Court held that employers must provide duty free rest periods to non-exempt employees under the industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4-2001 and Labor Code section 226.7.

Employers should examine their rest period policies to ensure conformance with California laws.

Previous Post: « Sayema Hameed Named 2017 Southern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers
Next Post: Second Meal Period Waivers For California Healthcare Workers Are Legal »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • News
  • Press
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • May 2022
  • February 2021
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • March 2019
  • December 2018
  • December 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • October 2016
  • July 2016
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • February 2014
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • September 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2009
  • May 2008

Connect

           

Tags

#MeToo Abercrombie anti-discrimination arbitration arbitration agreement baby bonding California california employment law CFRA coronavirus COVID-19 credit report DFEH disability discrimination DLSE EDD EEOC employee employer employment contract employment discrimination employment law entertainment family medical leave FEHA FMLA gender expression gender identity harassment healthcare hijab independent contractor meal break NLRB paid family leave pandemic pregnancy disability leave religion religious discrimination sex discrimination sexual harassment Sick Leave Law small business social media wrongful termination

Copyright © 2022 · Cabada Hameed LLP · Disclaimer · Sitemap · Log in