Stoel Rives: California Supreme Court Prohibits Employers from Implementing "On-Call" Rest Breaks | Practical Law

Stoel Rives: California Supreme Court Prohibits Employers from Implementing "On-Call" Rest Breaks | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Stoel Rives LLP discusses Jennifer Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., in which the California Supreme Court concluded that employers may not implement "on-call" rest breaks for their employees. This holding led to the reinstatement of a $90 million judgment against an employer that had required security guards to carry radios during rest breaks in order to respond to emergencies. While California law does not explicitly prohibit on-call rest periods, an examination of the state's rest and meal period break laws and labor laws led the court to determine that on-duty and on-call rest periods are prohibited and to mandate that rest periods be off-duty.

Stoel Rives: California Supreme Court Prohibits Employers from Implementing "On-Call" Rest Breaks

by Stoel Rives LLP
Law stated as at 28 Dec 2016California
This Law Firm Publication by Stoel Rives LLP discusses Jennifer Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., in which the California Supreme Court concluded that employers may not implement "on-call" rest breaks for their employees. This holding led to the reinstatement of a $90 million judgment against an employer that had required security guards to carry radios during rest breaks in order to respond to emergencies. While California law does not explicitly prohibit on-call rest periods, an examination of the state's rest and meal period break laws and labor laws led the court to determine that on-duty and on-call rest periods are prohibited and to mandate that rest periods be off-duty.