It is a common argument by plaintiff’s counsel in wage and hour class actions: The employer’s policy that requires the employee to remain on the company premises during 10-minute rest breaks facially violates California law. Therefore, because the employer has a facially invalid rest break policy, it is a company wide policy that is uniform, and should easily be certified as a class action.
However, there are many cases that support the position that on the premises rest break policy is not facially invalid, and that an on-premises rest break policy, alone, is not sufficient to establish that the employer did not relinquish control as to how the employees spent their rest breaks. The key factor is whether the employer controlled how the employee spent their rest break time, in addition to requiring the employee to remain on premises, such as limiting the employees to stay close to their work area for example.
Augustus v. ABM Security Services Recognized There Exist Practical Limitations Where an Employee Can Go During a 10-minute Rest Break.
In Augustus v. ABM Security Services (2016) 2 Cal. 5th 257, the California Supreme Court held that by requiring employees to remain on call by monitoring a pager during a 10-minute rest break violated California law. Our prior analysis on Augustus can be read here. However, the Supreme Court was clear that because the 10-minute rest breaks are only 10-minutes, there are “practical limitations on an employee’s movement.” The Court...
AURORA, Mo. (WKRC) — A Missouri woman is facing a child abuse charge after investigators say her daughter described being pressured to make false allegations against her father during a custody di...