Legal Opinion

Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 2015No. S212704PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CORRIGAN, J.

Here we hold that, under the California wage order covering security guards, these plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for all on-call hours spent at their assigned worksites under their employer’s control.

I. BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are not in dispute. As applicable here, CPS employed on-call guards 3 to provide security at construction worksites. Part of each guard’s day was spent on active patrol. Each evening, guards were required to be on call at the worksite and to respond to disturbances should the need arise.

More specifically, a guard’s obligations differed…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Armour & Co. v. WantockSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Martinez v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Carl Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  2. Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2018
  3. O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
  4. Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. NewtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
  5. Augustus v. ABM Security ServicesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016

51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API