ABM Security Services, Inc. employed about 15,000 current and former security guards at residential, retail, office, and industrial sites throughout California. In 2005, Jennifer Augustus and two other security guards, filed a class action case against ABM on behalf of all ABM security guards. The complaint accused ABM of failing to provide uninterrupted rest breaks as required by California law.
The employer did not relieve guards of all duties during rest breaks. Guards were required to be on-call, to keep their radios and pagers on, and respond to employer calls. However, the employer argued that the guards regularly took rest breaks and were rarely interrupted by work-related calls.
The trial court sided with the employees, stating that an on-duty or on-call break is no break at all. The court awarded approximately $90 million to the employees. The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which answered these two questions:
Are employers required to give their employees off-duty rest periods?
Should employers require their employees to remain on-call during rest breaks?
Off-duty rest breaks: A rest break plainly refers to “a period of rest.” “Rest” implies the opposite of work, and could mean the cessation of work or freedom from activity or labor. The high court concluded that an off-duty rest break means a time during which an employee is relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer control. Such off-duty rest breaks must be provided.
On-call rest breaks: The high court ruled that if an employer requires its employees to remain on call during a rest break, the employee has not been relieved of duties and is still effectively on-duty. Employees forced to remain on call during a 10-minute rest break must fulfill certain duties: carry a phone or pager so the employer can reach them at any time, respond to employer’s call, and perform other work requested by employer. These obligations inhibit the employees’ freedom to use rest breaks for their own purposes. Therefore, employees must be relieved of all work duties, and must be free to spend their time as they wish.
The Supreme Court noted that an on-duty rest period may be allowed under very limited situations. For example, employees who are directly responsible for minor children, or persons receiving 24-hour residential care, and employees of 24-hour residential care facilities for the elderly or disabled, may be asked to remain on the premises and maintain general supervision of residents during their rest breaks if the employee is in sole charge of residents.
But generally, and for most employees, California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest breaks. During required rest breaks, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time. Otherwise, employers must pay an extra hour of pay per day that a rest break is not provided.
* * *
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully obtained significant recoveries for thousands of employees and consumers. He is named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, consistently Aselected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.