Blog

On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme issued a blockbuster opinion in the case of Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (S224853).  As described more fully below, the Court held that California law prohibits both “on call” and “on duty” rest periods.  On call rest periods are those in which an employee is available by phone or by radio.  On duty rest periods are those in which the employees continue to perform some job duties.  For example, the plaintiffs in Augustus claimed that:

ABM required guards to keep their radios and pagers on, remain vigilant, and respond when needs arose, such as escorting tenants to parking lots, notifying building managers of mechanical problems, and responding to emergency situations.

The holding in Augustus means that employers must relieve their workers of all duties, and relinquish all control over them during their breaks.  As such, Augustus is consistent with the seminal case of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004.  Like Brinker, Augustus is a huge win for workers.

Continue reading “No On Call or On-Duty Rest Periods in California” →

As workers have increasingly turned to class actions in order to combat wage theft and other unlawful actions in the workplace, employers have fought back on a number of fronts.  Two issues that have gotten a lot of attention lately are (1) the use of sampling and (2) the role of individualized damages.

How courts rule on the issue of sampling is important because it is often an effective way for workers to manage issues that arise in the class context.  How courts rule on the issue of individualized damages is critical because sometimes employers have unlawful policies or practices, but not all employees are damaged by them.  Under those circumstances, should the employees who have been damaged be able to bring a class action to vindicate their rights?

On November 21, 2016, workers in California won a significant victory with respect to both sampling and damages.  In Lubin v. Wackenhut (Second App. Dist.,  case no. B344383), the court of appeal reversed an order decertifying the class in a case brought by private security officers.  As a result, those workers will be able to proceed to trial and to bring their claims on a class-wide basis. Continue reading “Another Win for Workers in the War over Sampling and Damages in Class Actions” →

On September 26, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1241, which addresses choice of law and choice of forum clauses in employment contracts.  Simply put, some employers try to force workers to bring any claims they might have (for discrimination, failure to pay wages, etc.) in other states.  The most aggressive seek to force workers to bring their claims in other countries.  See, for example, Petersen v. Boeing Co. (9th Cir. 2013) 715 F.3d 276, in which the employer attempted to compel the plaintiff to litigate his claims in Saudi Arabia.

Choice of forum clauses are particularly burdensome for low wage workers.  It is often a challenge for these workers to find an attorney to represent them, in part because their claims are generally thought to be worth less money.  A choice of forum clause requiring a worker to litigate in another state renders it even more difficult to find an attorney willing to take the case.

Beginning on January 1, 2017, California workers will have an important tool to combat choice of forum clauses.  The new Labor Code section 925 will prohibit employers from requiring employees who primarily reside and work in California to agree that they must bring employment-related claims outside of California, provided that the employees’ claims arise in California.  Under section 925, such contractual provisions are voidable, and any dispute over them must be heard and decided in California.  Additionally, section 925 provides for attorney’s fees to an employee who is enforcing rights under that section. Continue reading “New Law Prohibits Employers From Forcing Workers To Bring Claims In Other States and Countries” →