Augustus v. ABM Security Services
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Cuéllar, J.
We granted review to address two related issues: whether employers are required to permit their employees to take off-duty rest periods under Labor Code section 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order No. 4-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 (Wage Order 4)), and whether employers may require their employees to remain "on call" during rest periods. What we conclude is that state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. During required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Martinez v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- ZB, N.A. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- Troester v. Starbucks CorporationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
- Donohue v. AMN Services, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2021
- Alexia Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.California Supreme Court · 2018
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.