Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.
60 Cal. 4th 833
| Cal. | 2015Background
- CPS employed on-call security guards who lived in employer-provided onsite trailers and were required to remain at or near the worksite during assigned on-call periods.
- Weekday schedule: 8 hours patrol, 8 hours on-call, 8 hours off; weekends: 16 hours patrol, 8 hours on-call.
- Trailers had residential amenities; access was restricted (only assigned guard and maintenance had keys); visitors, pets, alcohol restricted.
- Guards had to notify dispatch before leaving; if no reliever was available they had to remain onsite; if relieved they had to stay within 30 minutes and be reachable.
- CPS paid for patrol time and only for on-call time when responding to disturbances or when waiting for/denied relief; plaintiffs sued claiming on-call time was compensable under IWC Wage Order No. 4.
- Trial court and Court of Appeal agreed that on-call time was compensable; Supreme Court affirmed that ruling but reversed the Court of Appeal’s extension permitting exclusion of sleep time from 24-hour shifts under Wage Order 4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether on-call hours at the worksite are "hours worked" under Wage Order No. 4 | Mendiola: guards were under employer control and presence primarily benefitted CPS, so on-call time is compensable | CPS: guards engaged in personal activities (sleeping, watching TV); federal rule treats residence-on-premises time as nonworking | Held: on-call hours are hours worked because guards were subject to employer control and time primarily benefited CPS |
| Whether federal FLSA regulation permitting exclusion of sleep time (29 C.F.R. part 785.22/785.23) is incorporated into Wage Order No. 4 | Mendiola: Wage Order 4 should be read to require compensation absent explicit IWC language excluding sleep time | CPS: federal regulation should be imported to allow treating much on-premises time as nonworking | Held: Court will not import federal regulation into Wage Order 4 absent convincing IWC intent; part 785.22/785.23 not incorporated |
| Whether employers may exclude sleep time from compensable hours in 24-hour shifts under Wage Order No. 4 | Mendiola: no exclusion absent explicit wage-order language authorizing it | CPS: Monzon and Seymore allow exclusion of up to 8 hours for sleep based on federal regulation | Held: Monzon limited to its facts (ambulance workers); Seymore disapproved; Wage Order 4 does not permit excluding sleep time from compensable hours |
| Retroactivity of the decision | Mendiola: (implicit) plaintiffs sought recovery for past unpaid wages | CPS: urged prospective application | Held: decision applies retroactively; no compelling reason to limit retroactivity |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (explaining state standard and declining to import federal rule absent IWC intent)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (context on wage orders and employee protection)
- Monzon v. Schaefer Ambulance Serv., Inc., 224 Cal.App.3d 16 (24-hour shift sleep-time exclusion for ambulance attendants; limited in scope)
- Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., 194 Cal.App.4th 361 (extended Monzon; disapproved by Supreme Court)
- Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (standby/on-call time may be compensable)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (distinguishing being engaged to wait vs waiting to be engaged)
- Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera, 36 Cal.3d 403 (on-call mealtime held compensable)