This California Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis P.C. discusses Augustus v. ABM Sec. Services, Inc., in which the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court that had awarded $90 million to a class of security guards for alleged violations of the state's rest period requirement (California Labor Code, Section 226.7). The Court of Appeal held that despite the requirement that the guards remain on-call, they were provided proper rest periods by their employer. The court noted that being on-call is not the same as working. While the guards in Augustus were required to keep radios on and respond when needed, they were allowed to engage in personal activities such as making personal phone calls, reading and using the internet. The court noted that under Section 226.7, rest periods need not be distinguishable from an employee's other hours of work. The guards were relieved of all duty for meal breaks, but those breaks were unpaid, unlike rest periods for which the guards received pay that signified employer control.