Security Guards

News & Analysis as of

Answering The Call

California leads the nation in vigilantly regulating the conditions which constitute “hours worked.” Definitions are established, modified, and expanded by the California Labor Code, its Wage Orders, and decisions by...more

$90 Million Judgment In Favor Of Security Guards Who Remained On Call During Rest Breaks Is Reversed

In this class action lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that ABM did not provide rest periods to its security guard employees because it failed to relieve them of all duties and required them to remain on call during their breaks....more

Security Guards Are Entitled To Compensation For All On-Call Hours Spent At Employer’s Worksite

CPS employed on-call guards to provide security at construction worksites. Part of each guard’s day was spent on active patrol. Each evening, guards were required to remain on call and on premises at the worksite to respond...more

Being on Call in California Does Not Impede on Rest Breaks

Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., No. B243788 (filed December 31, 2014, pub. ord. January 29, 2015)): In its recently published decision, the California Court of Appeal held that on-call rest breaks are permissible. In...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 Security Solutions, Inc. held that security guards were entitled to...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - February 2015

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

Employers: CA Court of Appeal Rules On-Duty Rest Breaks Permitted

In late January, a California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., overturning a $90 million award against the company because ABM required its security guards to keep their radios and...more

The California Supreme Court Holds That Certain Security Guards Must Be Paid to Sleep

On December 31, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (Case No. S212704) that security guards who work shifts of 24 or more hours under Wage Order 4 must be compensated for their...more

Courts Firm Up Compensability for Employees’ Break Periods

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided two cases in January 2015 notably affirming that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. an employee’s break period is only compensable if the employee spends that...more

Employment Law Alert: Remaining On Call During Rest Periods is Okay

In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (Nos. B243788 & B247392, filed 12/31/14), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held Labor Code section 226.7 prescribes only that an employee may not be...more

Have a Seat, Please!!

Now that the California Supreme Court crippled California employers covered under IWC Wage Order 4 (the catch-all Wage Order), in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. by making them retroactively liable for all on-call...more

Mendiola Decision Highlights a Key Issue - The Calculation of "Hours Worked"

The continuing stream of lawsuits challenging employers’ payroll practices is well-documented. A large portion of wage and hour lawsuits seek to recover overtime compensation that should have been paid to employees who were...more

California’s On-Site On-Call Employees Hit Jackpot

On January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court held in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. that security guards employed at construction worksites under California Wage Order 4 – the catch-all wage order – are entitled...more

Employees Snooze, Employers Lose: California Supreme Court Delivers Wake Up Call to Employers of On-Call Security Workers

In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., issued on January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that security guards are entitled to compensation for all on-call hours spent at their assigned worksites, even when...more

Sixth Circuit Revisits FLSA Compliance During Employee Meal Periods

In Ruffin v. MotorCity Casino, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether casino security guards, required to remain on casino property during meal periods, monitor two-way radios, and respond to emergencies if...more

Employment Alert: Security Guards Entitled to Compensation for On-Call Hours Spent Under Employer’s Control

In Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 107082, published January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court held that: (1) on-call hours at a worksite represented “hours worked” for overtime purposes when the employer...more

No Lullaby for Employers: California Supreme Court Finds Sleep Periods Considered 'Hours Worked'

In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., S212704 (Jan. 8 2015), California’s Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule that “hours worked” under California law includes all hours an employee is under the employer’s control, even...more

Employers Finally Get a Break—Court Reverses $90 Million Verdict and Holds That Employers Are Not Required to Relieve Employees of...

On December 31, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second District of California held in an unpublished opinion that employers are not required to relieve employees of all duty during rest periods mandated by California state...more

Did You Know…No Sleeping Time Exclusion During 24-Hour Shifts When Employer Exercises Significant Control

In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that security guards working 24-hour shifts have to be paid for all 24 hours without carving out eight hours of sleeping time – meaning the entire...more

California Supreme Court Holds 24-Hour Security Guards Entitled to 24-Hours of Pay

Security guards who work eight hours per day, are on-call eight hours per day, and reside/sleep (off duty but on site) eight hours per day are entitled to be paid for the entire 24-hour time period, says the California...more

California Supreme Court Rules On-Duty Guards Entitled to Pay for On-Call and Sleep Time

On January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the on-call hours for security guards who work 24-hour shifts constituted compensable hours worked. Further, the court ruled that the guards’...more

6th Circuit: Interruptions During Meal Period Do Not Automatically Render Time Compensable

Yesterday we told you about the California Court of Appeals' decision in which the court found that it was not unlawful for an employer to require its security guards to be "on call" during rest periods. The Sixth Circuit...more

EEOC Files Contempt Action Against Charlotte Security Provider Metro Special Police

Security Provider Failed to Make Payments Agreed Upon in Litigation Settlement, Federal Agency Charges - CHARLOTTE, N.C. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has filed a...more

California District Court Rejects Yet Another Class Settlement

In yet another decision rejecting a settlement of an employment class action, the Northern District of California refused to approve a settlement of a wage and hour suit due to numerous problems with the resolution reached...more

Jury Finds In Favor Of EEOC That One-Armed Security Guard Was Fired Because Of His Disability

MIAMI - In a verdict in favor of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a jury has found that a licensed security guard with only one arm was unlawfully discriminated against based on his limb loss when his...more

29 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×