Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court
127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 883
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Holland, Richardson and Evans filed a class action wage-and-hour suit against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
- Securitas moved for summary adjudication of the second count for nonpayment of mandatory split-shift pay, contending uninterrupted overnight shifts spanning midnight are not split shifts.
- The trial court denied the motion; Securitas sought extraordinary relief; the appellate court granted reconsideration and remanded.
- Securitas kept a workday from midnight to the following midnight, so shifts could span two calendar days and two workdays.
- Wage Order No. 4 defines a split shift as a work schedule interrupted by unpaid non-working periods, distinct from bona fide rest or meals.
- The court held that consecutive uninterrupted overnight shifts do not constitute a split shift, but Frederick’s second count could involve other split-shift circumstances, so summary adjudication was not appropriate on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do uninterrupted consecutive overnight shifts constitute a split shift? | Holland argues shifts spanning midnight are split shifts if nonconsecutive periods occur. | Securitas contends no split shift when shifts are uninterrupted and span two days. | Uninterrupted consecutive overnight shifts do not constitute a split shift. |
| Can Securitas obtain summary adjudication given potential other split-shift circumstances? | Second count covers other split-shift scenarios beyond consecutive overnight shifts. | Securitas showed no other split-shift circumstances; thus no liability for split-shift pay. | Securitas failed to show absence of split-shift scenarios beyond consecutive overnight shifts; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) (dual purposes of overtime and split-shift pay; scheduling incentives)
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996) (wage-order regulation interpretation)
- Singh v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 387 (Cal. App. 2006) (liberal construction of wage orders; statutory construction guidance)