233 Cal.App.4th 1065
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (former ABM security guards) brought a class action alleging ABM required guards to remain on call during paid 10‑minute rest breaks, rendering those breaks invalid under Cal. labor law and entitling class to premium wages and penalties.
- ABM's Post Orders required guards to keep radios/pagers on and respond to emergencies, but guards also testified they routinely took uninterrupted breaks and engaged in personal activities while on break.
- The trial court certified a class of thousands of guards and granted plaintiffs summary adjudication that on‑call breaks are invalid because employees must be relieved of all duty during rest breaks.
- On plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion the trial court awarded roughly $100 million (wages, interest, penalties) and attorneys’ fees; ABM appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed class certification but reversed the summary adjudication and judgment, holding that Wage Order No. 4 and Labor Code §226.7 prohibit requiring employees to "work" during rest periods but do not require that rest periods be free of all duties such as being on call.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employer must relieve employees of all duties during paid 10‑minute rest periods | Rest breaks are invalid if employees remain on call or subject to employer control; DLSE guidance and prior decisions support a duty‑free rest period | Remaining on call is not the same as performing work; mere on‑call availability does not convert a rest break into work when employees otherwise engage in personal activities | On‑call availability alone does not constitute "work" under §226.7; Wage Order No.4 does not require relief of all duty for rest periods; reversal of summary adjudication and judgment |
| Whether Brinker requires the same "relieved of all duty" standard for rest breaks as for meal breaks | Brinker’s protections for meal breaks extend equally to rest breaks; employer must relinquish control during rest breaks | Brinker’s relieved‑of‑all‑duty holding applies to unpaid meal periods (Wage Order 11(A)), not paid rest periods (Wage Order 12(A)) | Brinker’s relieved‑of‑all‑duty rule applies to meal periods only; rest periods are governed by §226.7’s prohibition on requiring employees "to work," not an absolute duty‑free requirement |
| Whether DLSE opinion letters or Faulkinbury mandate that any on‑call rest break is per se invalid | DLSE letters and Faulkinbury support plaintiffs’ interpretation that rest breaks must be duty‑free | DLSE letters do not address on‑call breaks generally and Faulkinbury did not decide the merits; DLSE letters are guidance, not controlling | DLSE opinion cited (2002) concerned movement between work stations and did not hold all on‑call rest breaks invalid; Faulkinbury did not resolve the substantive scope of rest‑break duties |
| Whether class certification was improper given alleged nonuniform application of policy | Individualized issues of whether particular breaks were interrupted defeat predominance and certification | ABM’s corporate policy requiring on‑call status created predominating common questions; any variations go to damages, not liability | Class certification affirmed: common policy and question of liability predominate; variations affect damages only |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (discussion of employer duties for meal and rest periods; relieved‑of‑all‑duty rule applies to meal periods)
- Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 220 (class treatment appropriate to examine security‑guard rest‑break policies; did not resolve substantive scope of duty‑free requirement)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (compensability of employer‑required travel time; not dispositive on rest‑break definition)
- Aguilar v. Association for Retarded Citizens, 234 Cal.App.3d 21 (on‑call overnight on‑site time found compensable; distinguishes compensable on‑call facts from paid rest‑break question)
- Sav‑On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (standards for class certification and appellate review of certification rulings)