Maritime Reflections: Pirates
In the spirit of the season—and keeping some semblance of normal—we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this seventh day of...more
If your workforce includes private security officers, then new Assembly Bill 1512 should come as great news to you. Back in 2016, the California Supreme Court issued a controversial decision called Augustus v. ABM Security...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
Recently, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court upheld a $90 million award of statutory damages, interest, and penalties against an employer who required employees to remain on-call during...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
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
$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: Does carrying a pager nullify a rest break? What about the possibility of being tapped on the shoulder by your boss? Or being called on your cell phone? The California Supreme Court considered these and...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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