Wage and Hour Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Citation: Vol. 31 No. 2
• Publication year: 2017
• Author: By Leonard H. Sansanowicz
• topic: Labor Law,Employment Law

Wage and Hour Case Notes

By Leonard H. Sansanowicz

Leonard H. Sansanowicz is a senior associate with Feldman Browne Olivares, APC and represents employees in all aspects of employment law. He has been a Southern California Rising Star each year since 2013, and in 2015 and 2016 was named to the Up-and-Coming 100 list. He can be contacted at: leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com.

Employers Must Relieve Employees of All Duties During Rest Periods (No "On-Call" Rest Breaks)

Augustus v. ABM Security Servs., Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016)

Reversing the court of appeal, the California Supreme Court held that state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods and that, like meal periods,¹ employers must provide their employees with rest periods free from job duties or employer control. The high court reiterated that the Labor Code and wage orders must be interpreted to ensure employee protection. Thus, a reading of the term "rest" period implies a period free of work, which is consistent with Labor Code § 226.7,² and employers may not require their employees to remain "on-call" during their rest periods. The ongoing obligations associated with being on-call would violate the duty-free nature of rest periods, and would be "irreconcilable with employees' retention of freedom to use rest periods for their own purpose."³

On-Duty Meal Period Policy Valid Even If Employees Must Request Meal Periods

Driscoll v. Graniterock Co., 6 Cal. App. 5th 215 (2016)

Plaintiffs were concrete mixer drivers, who were required to stay by their trucks at all times while the concrete was mixing. They filed a class action for failure to provide meal periods or pay meal period premium wages. Defendant contended that it had valid on-duty meal period agreements with its drivers. The trial court deemed the agreements, which required employees to give a full day's notice of their intent to revoke the agreement in writing, invalid as a matter of law...