Publications Archives

By: Kyle D. Kring

Recently, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the Supreme Court of California ruled that employers may not require their employees to remain "on call" during rest periods. The Court noted that, "state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods" and "during rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time."

In Augustus, plaintiff and the members of the class were security guards for defendant ABM. They were required to keep their pages and radios on during rest periods and remain available to answer and respond to calls if the necessary. Plaintiffs alleged that ABM failed to provide uninterrupted rest periods as required by state law and ABM acknowledged the fact. ABM argued that their policy did not violate state law because it simply required the guards to keep their devices on in case an incident arose. Importantly, plaintiffs presented evidence that breaks were regularly uninterrupted.

The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on damages, awarding $90 million, finding that an on-call break is no break at all. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that merely being on-call does not equate to performing work and therefore state law does not require employers to provide off-duty rest periods.

By: Kyle D. Kring

Posted: December 5, 2016

Please be advised the court in the Nisei Farmers League v. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (State of California), the case pending in the superior court for the County of Fresno, issued its final ruling on plaintiff's request for a Stay of AB 1513, which was part of plaintiff Nisei Farmer's prior Motion for Declaratory Relief. The court denied the plaintiff's request for a stay and granted the state's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend effectively ending the case at the trial court level, but for plaintiffs filing a Writ or an Appeal of the ruling (depending on whether the plaintiffs are able to amend as discussed further below). A copy of the court's Minute Order can be viewed here with the Modified Tentative Ruling on the State's Demurrer and the Tentative Ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Declaratory Relief.

As you may recall, the Plaintiff Nisei Farmers League and CBIA recently filed a Motion for Declaratory Relief, following the denial of its motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The plaintiffs argued that AB 1513 and specifically, "actual sums due" and "non-productive time" were ambiguous as a matter of law. The court disagreed finding "in this legal context, 'actual sums due' and 'non-productive time' are defined with 'reasonable specificity' and are not vague and ambiguous as a matter of law."

By: Kyle D. Kring

Posted on November 8, 2016

As many of you know, the deadline to make the AB 1513 payments is currently December 15, 2016, unless the Fresno Superior Court issues a stay on payments made per AB 1513 within the next week or two, which appears unlikely at this time. What you may not know is that the December 15th deadline applies to both payments to employees you are able to identify and payments to the DIR/DLSE (two separate checks) for employees who you are not able to locate.

In order to accomplish your "due diligence" in locating ex-employees, you need to start the investigative process now to ensure compliance by December 15, 2016. We have recommended a two-step process of sending an initial letter to your ex-employees requesting they confirm their last known address. If the employee does not respond to this letter, we recommend that you conduct a public records search in a further attempt to locate the ex-employee and satisfy the "due diligence" requirement in AB 1513.

By: Kyle D. Kring and Tyler Kring

Posted on September 1, 2016

On August 22, 2016, the Ninth Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with their ruling in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP regarding class action waivers. The court found that arbitration agreements containing class action waivers violated employees' rights to bring class and collective actions against an employer.