![]() ![]() While the Court of Appeal affirmed the certification decision, it reversed the trial court’s summary judgment rulings, rejecting the trial court’s view of “on-call” rest breaks. The trial court had also certified the rest break subclass, finding that this was a “15,000-person one-issue case” that was “perfect for class treatment.” Id. Because ABM failed as a matter of policy to provide any duty-free rest breaks, the trial court found it liable for rest period penalties under Labor Code section 226.7, as well as attorney’s fees and interest, in the total amount of nearly $90 million. As the trial court stated, “ut simply, if you are on call, you are not on break.” Augustus at *11. In order to make sense of the statutory scheme, a rest period must not be subject to employer control otherwise a ‘rest period’ would be part of the work day for which the employer would be required to pay wages in any event.” Opinion and Order at 7. 4 provides that “‘rest period time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.’ Time that the employee is subject to control of the employer is work time and must be paid without reference to the definition of a rest period. The trial court reasoned that Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. Opinion and Order re: Cross Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication and Defendant’s Motion to Decertify Class, pp. The trial court held that because ABM’s undisputed rest period policy required its security guards to remain “on call” during their breaks in order to respond to requests for tenant assistance (including for non-emergency security needs), the guards remained under ABM’s control, despite being able to engage in limited leisure activities, such as smoking cigarettes, surfing the internet, reading, or having a cup of coffee. While the court initially issued its ruling as an unpublished decision, on January 29, 2015, the court changed the status of the opinion to “published.” On December 31, 2014, in a closely-watched case implicating substantive wage-and-hour law as well as class action law, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reversed orders granting summary judgment and summary adjudication in favor of a plaintiff class of security guards for rest break violations under the California Labor Code, and affirmed the trial court’s grant of class certification. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |