Security Guards

News & Analysis as of

CVS Accused of Engaging in Unlawful Discriminatory Practices

Over the past year, an exceptional number of retailers have been accused by customers of employing discriminatory practices in violation of both federal and state law. For example, just last year, luxury department store,...more

Are You in the DOL's Crosshairs? Statistics Give Warning to Retail, Hospitality Employers

Last week, the Department of Labor posted a new blog post from Wage and Hour Division Administrator Dr. David Weil highlighting the DOL’s wage and hour enforcement efforts. Dr. Weil’s statement that the DOL recovered “over...more

Employment Law - June 2015

Actual Knowledge by Employer Not Necessary for Title VII Religious Discrimination Claim, U.S. Supreme Court Rules - Why it matters: In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a teenage applicant to...more

San Francisco Is About to Begin Enforcing the Retail Workers Bill of Rights – Are You in Compliance?

On July 3, 2015, the San Francisco Retail Workers Bill of Rights becomes operative. This ordinance creates major changes for many companies doing business in San Francisco. Employers Affected - The law applies...more

May 2015 Independent Contractor Compliance and Misclassification News Update

May 2015 was one of the busiest months for independent contractor (IC) misclassification cases in the courts and administrative agencies – no less than a dozen cases including such well-known companies as BMW, the NFL and...more

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

33 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest 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. Or, sign up using your email address.
×