Maritime Reflections: Pirates
When it comes to defining a security company’s obligations, words may speak louder than actions. On January 06, 2021, the Third District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Margery Glickman and Fred Glickman vs. Kindred...more
On September 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Robert Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc. that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) applies to workers in the cannabis industry. This is a...more
Insurers often claim “economic damages” are not covered under a standard commercial general liability (CGL) policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 28 Cal. App....more
In yet another legal development calling into question a traditional independent contractor relationship in the U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that off-duty police officers were employees of a...more
General liability insurance policies normally cover “property damage.” Physical injury to, or outright destruction of, property almost always fits within policy coverage. But what about situations when the property is not...more
U.S. ex rel. Badr v. Triple Canopy, Inc., an intervened case arising out of the Fourth Circuit, has been one of the more closely-watched recent FCA cases. Previously, the Fourth Circuit held that the government’s complaint...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
$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
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
$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
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
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
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
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
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
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