[WEBINAR] Labor & Employment Law: What Changed in 2017
I-14: Update on EEO-1 and I-9 Forms, Employer Obligations After a Hurricane or Other Natural Disaster, and Attorney Jason Barsanti on Meal and Rest Breaks
I. SYNOPSIS- Ed was a vibrant and healthy 85-year-old. One day, he decided to sign an advance healthcare directive providing that if his physical condition ever declined, he wished to remain in his home as long as...more
Eddie Money Beats Discrimination Lawsuit Based On Free Speech Right - Symmonds v. Mahoney, 31 Cal. App. 5th 1096 (2019) - After 41 years, singer/songwriter Edward Joseph Mahoney (aka "Eddie Money") terminated the...more
May's key California employment law cases involve “on call” meal and rest periods, and employees working seven days a week. ...more
There are a variety of situations that may require your employees to handle on-call shifts after finishing their regular shift, most commonly if you need to provide certain services at irregular frequencies and intervals....more
In another important decision regarding an employer’s obligation to provide rest breaks, the California Supreme Court in Jennifer Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, dealt with two issues...more
On Dec. 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in Augustus, et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc. that an employer’s policy requiring employees to remain “on call” during paid rest breaks violated state law. This...more
$90 Million Judgment Reinstated: Employers Must Relieve Employees Of All Duties During Their Rest Periods - Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 7407328 (Cal. S. Ct. 2016) - Jennifer Augustus filed this...more
Let’s pick up where we left off. In our last post of 2016, I was complaining about the California Supreme Court’s decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. The majority opinion in that case said that employees who...more
Action Item: California employers are urged to review their rest period policies and practices, and consider changes that will ensure they relinquish control over how employees spend their break time and relieve their...more
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., ruled that California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. You may...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued a significant opinion regarding the issue of off-duty rest breaks in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (Dec. 22, 2016). The Court, in the context of employees being required...more
On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued a critical decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2016 D.J. 12608 (2016), relating to California’s rest period obligations. The California Supreme Court...more
In Jennifer Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court determined that employers are prohibited from implementing “on-call” rest breaks. This holding led the Supreme Court to reinstate an...more
After a years-long battle, the California Supreme Court finally issued a ruling defining what it means for an employer to provide a rest break to non-exempt employees under California law: rest breaks cannot be “on-duty” or...more
A class of security guards received an early holiday present from the California Supreme Court on December 22. The Court ruled that California law requires employees on rest breaks be relieved of all duties. It...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In what many employers will see as a “break” from workplace reality, the Supreme Court, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., announced that certain “on call” rest periods do not comply with the...more
On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court addressed two related issues: (i) whether California law requires employers to permit off-duty rest periods – that is, time during which an employee is relieved from all...more
$90 Million Judgment Reinstated: Employers Must Relieve Employees Of All Duties During Their Break Time - This week, the California Supreme Court ruled that California law strictly prohibits on-duty rest periods. “What...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Ninth Circuit has suggested it might upset longstanding “on call” practices by making California employers liable for “reporting time” pay to employees who phone in ahead of their schedule, only to find...more
Emphasizing that California law provides greater protections than federal law to on-call employees, the California Supreme Court in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. held that security guards were entitled to...more
On Premises, On-Call Time Compensable; Sleep Time Not Excluded - Emphasizing that California law provides greater protections than federal law to on-call employees, the California Supreme Court in Mendiola v. CPS...more