Wage and Hour Rest and Meal Break

News & Analysis as of

California Employment Law Notes - January 2017

$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

What Does It Mean That CA Employers Must “Relinquish All Control” During Meal and Rest Periods?

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

California Employers May Not Control How Employees Spend Their Break Time or Require On-Call Rest Periods

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

California Supreme Court: California Prohibits On-Duty And On-Call Rest Periods

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

Supreme Court Holds That Rest Periods Must Be Free From Duties And Employer Control

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

The Aggressive Push For Broad New Interpretations Of California’s Wage And Hour Laws

The past several years have been a difficult time for many California employers when it comes to wage and hour compliance. But if enterprising plaintiffs’ attorneys have their way, times will get even worse in the coming...more

Can Rest Breaks Be ‘Refused' Even If Not Requested?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Grange v Abellio London Ltd [2016] UKEAT/0130/16/DA Ltd considered whether an employee must ask for a rest break before claiming to have been refused one. Mr Grange was employed by...more

California Supreme Court rules employees cannot be on-call or on-duty during rest breaks

On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Augustus, et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc., holding that California employees cannot be on-call or on-duty during rest periods....more

California Supreme Court: No On-Duty, On-Call Rest Breaks

The California Supreme Court holds that California wage and hour laws prohibit on-duty and on-call rest breaks. On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled that California “employers must relieve their...more

California Supreme Court Prohibits Employers from Implementing “On-Call” Rest Breaks

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

California Supreme Court Tells Employees To Rest Assured

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

Employees on Rest Breaks Must Be Off Duty, California Supreme Court Rules

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

CA Employees Required to Carry Radios or Pagers on Rest Breaks Are Owed a Penalty

The worst aspect of California employment law is the way it combines unclear requirements with exorbitant penalties for noncompliance. So employers can’t necessarily tell what the law requires and, if they get it wrong, face...more

California Supreme Court Puts On-Call Breaks To Rest

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

Employers Beware: On-Duty and On-Call Rest Breaks Are Prohibited

On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued a decision, Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., concluding that state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. This decision reverses a January 2015...more

The “Opposite of Work”: California Supreme Court Issues On-Call Rest Break Ruling

On December 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of California ruled that California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. According to the court, “[d]uring required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of...more

California employers must relieve their employees of all duties during breaks

$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

No Break for California Employers This Holiday Season

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

A Break Is A Break: California Supreme Court Rules That Rest Breaks Must Be Duty Free

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled that employers must provide their workers with duty-free rest breaks or face potentially devastating financial consequences. Most California employers know that state law generally...more

Do you need to make sure your workers take a break during the workday?

Under UK law, the starting point is that a worker is entitled to a rest break of 20 minutes, where he or she works for more than six hours a day (Regulation 12(1), Working Time Regulations 1998 (the WTR)). If an employer...more

Employment Law – Lunch Period Requirement

Brian Driscoll et al. v. Granite Rock Company - Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District (November 30, 2016) - Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (b) requires that an employer cannot require an employee to work...more

Employment Law - December 2016 #2

New EEOC Guidance on National Origin Discrimination - Why it matters - For the first time in more than a decade, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published new guidance on national origin...more

New California Employment Laws 2016

California’s 2016 legislative session ended, once again, with a flurry of activity in the legislature and by Governor Jerry Brown, resulting in numerous new laws requiring employer action. The end-of-session bills were not...more

Opt Ins are Out (of Luck) Appealing Decertification

With all the drama of a get-away chase, the Third Circuit recently brought to a screeching halt plaintiffs’ counsel’s elaborate maneuvers to end run repeated decertification of their FLSA actions, and held as a matter of...more

Courts to Consider Theories, Not Facts, on Certification

Seyfarth Synopsis: In Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp., the California Court of Appeal reinstated an effort to certify a class of over 10,000 security officers required to sign on-duty meal period agreements. The Court of Appeal...more

180 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 8
Popular Topics

"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*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×