California Supreme Court Weighs In on Intent of Rest Period

Los Angeles, CAA revealing opinion issued at the end of last year by The California Supreme Court addressed, and clarified a heretofore murky area of California labor law, notably just what constitutes a true rest period, and what doesn’t.

Specifically, the difference between rest periods whereby employees are relieved of all work tasks and commitments for the duration of the rest period, and rest periods for which employees in certain sectors are to remain on-call and available as-needed, while in the midst of a rest period. Security guards, for example are often mandated by their employers to remain alert and vigilant at all times, even on a rest break.

Thus, is it really a rest break under the California labor code?

The opinion issued this last December by the state Supreme Court was the culmination of a California labor lawsuit stemming from 2005. Plaintiff Jennifer Augustus worked as a security guard for ABM, a security firm. The employer, according to court documents, maintained a policy that required security personnel “to keep their radios and pagers on, to remain vigilant and to respond when needs arise,” even when taking a rest break.

Did such a policy violate California and labor law? Augustus bet that it did, and filed a putative class action lawsuit against ABM on behalf of all security guards employed by the firm.

Augustus and the class she represented won the day, when the trial court found for the plaintiffs and awarded about $90 million to a class that numbered about 15,000.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District took a different positon, noting in its view that the California labor code “prohibits only working during a rest break, not remaining available to work.” That finding was based upon the prevailing view of the appellate Court that “remaining available to work is not the same as performing work.”

In the end, the Supreme Court analyzed both opinions and struck down the appellate court’s ruling, finding that employers are, indeed obligated to provide off-duty rest periods, whereby the employee is truly and completely off-duty. Any employee who remains on-call is not, truly off-duty and thus, the intent of the rest period is lost, and the requirement under California labor employment law is violated.

“One cannot square the practice of compelling employees to remain at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices, with the requirement to relieve employees of all work duties and employer control during 10-minute rest periods,” the state Supreme Court said, in part.

The defendant’s rest period policy as it related to its security personnel translated to an obligation to perform various functions during their 10-minute rest break, including but not limited to “carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee and performing other work if the employer so requests.”

The state Supreme Court restored the $90 million award to the class. It is not known if the case will be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.

The California labor lawsuit is Jennifer Augustus et al, v. ABM Security Services, Inc. Case Nos. S224853, B243788, B247392, BC336416, BC345918, CG5444421, in the Supreme Court of California, County of Los Angeles.