On-Call

Subscribe to On-Call via RSS

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2019 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

…

Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., 31 Cal. App. 5th 1167 (2019)

Skylar Ward challenged by way of this putative class action the on-call scheduling practices of her former employer, Tilly’s, Inc., as violating the reporting time pay requirements of California law. Tilly’s required on-call employees to contact Tilly’s two hours before their on-call shifts. If they are told to come in, they are paid…

$90 Million Judgment Reinstated:  Employers Must Relieve Employees Of All Duties During Their Break Time

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled that California law strictly prohibits on-duty rest periods.  “What [the law] require[s] instead is that employers relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and relieve their employees of all duties – including the obligation that an employee remain on call.”  This…

The Chamber of Commerce has just released its preliminary list of “job killer” bills that have been proposed in the California Legislature. Don’t forget that California remains tied with Louisiana for the fourth highest rate of unemployment in the country at 6.7%.

This year’s list identifies 16 proposed laws, including four new “Increased Labor Costs” mandates and one “Increased Unnecessary Litigation Costs” mandate, which…

Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal. 4th 833 (2015)

CPS employed on-call guards to provide security at construction worksites. Part of each guard’s day was spent on active patrol. Each evening, guards were required to remain on call and on premises at the worksite to respond to disturbances should the need arise. By written agreement, on-call guards were required to reside in…

Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 676 (2015)

In this class action lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that ABM did not provide rest periods to its security guard employees because it failed to relieve them of all duties and required them to remain on call during their breaks. The trial court certified the class and granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication, concluding…

San Francisco recently enacted two sweeping ordinances that are being referred to as the “Retail Workers Bill of Rights” (you can find the ordinances here and here). The new laws impose strict new requirements on retail employers and establishments in the City of San Francisco. While the ordinances became effective on January 5, 2015, employers will have until July 3, 2015 to comply. Below…

Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., 194 Cal. App. 4th 361 (2011)

Plaintiffs Andrew Seymore and Kenneth Blonden were employed by Metson Marine as crew members on Metson’s offshore oil spill recovery vessels. Crew members worked 14-day rotational hitches, alternating with 14-day rest periods and were paid to work a 12-hour daily shift during the two-week period, except on crew-change days, when they worked only…

Gomez v. Lincare, Inc., 173 Cal. App. 4th 508 (2009)

Lincare provides respiratory services and medical equipment setup to patients in their homes. Plaintiffs were Lincare service representatives who drove vans containing liquid and compressed oxygen (defined by the federal government as “hazardous materials”) and worked on call in the evenings and on weekends. Plaintiffs sought compensation for the on-call time they spent resolving…

Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1524 (2009)

Sarkis Ghazaryan filed this class action lawsuit alleging that Diva Limousine had failed to pay wages, overtime compensation, and to provide meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. Diva followed a policy of paying its drivers an hourly rate of pay for assigned trips but it failed to pay them…