Augustus v. ABM Security Services
211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 634
Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs were security guards employed by ABM Security Services; ABM required guards to keep radios/pagers on and be reachable during rest periods.
- Guards’ duties included responding to emergencies, escorting tenants, reporting problems, and routine surveillance.
- Plaintiffs sued for failure to provide lawful rest periods under IWC Wage Order No. 4 and Labor Code § 226.7; trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and awarded ≈ $90M; Court of Appeal reversed.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether law requires off‑duty rest periods and whether employers may require employees to remain on call during those breaks.
- The Court construed Wage Order 4 (subd. 12) and Labor Code § 226.7 in light of the IWC’s purpose and DLSE guidance, applying precedent favoring employee protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employers must provide off‑duty rest periods (free from duties and employer control) | Wage Order 4 and § 226.7 require rest periods that are duty‑free and off‑duty | Wage Order 12(A) does not expressly require being relieved of all duty for rest periods; on‑duty rest periods are permissible | Held: Employers must authorize off‑duty rest periods; rest periods require relieving employees of all duties and relinquishing employer control |
| Whether employers may require employees to remain on call during rest periods | On‑call status that merely keeps employees reachable does not necessarily prevent a duty‑free rest period | Requiring employees to remain on call (radios/pagers on, vigilant, respond when needed) is permissible and does not equal working | Held: Employers may not compel employees to remain on call during rest periods; on‑call breaks are inconsistent with the duty‑free requirement (exceptions: reschedule break, pay premium, or obtain narrow DLSE exemption) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (describing duty‑free meal/rest period obligations)
- Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 833 (analysis of compensable on‑call time for security personnel)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (liberal construction of wage orders to protect employees)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (employer control can convert time into compensable work)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (history and purpose of IWC wage orders)
- Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (text of wage order as primary indicator of IWC intent)
- Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 63 Cal.4th 1 (discussion of historical rest/meal provisions)
- Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.3d 690 (remedial purpose of IWC regulations)
- Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera, 36 Cal.3d 403 (on‑duty meal time when employees must respond)
- Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 662 (DLSE opinions and enforcement context)