## Facts

- ABM Security Services, Inc. employed thousands of security guards at sites across California.
- Guards’ duties included patrolling, monitoring access, escorting tenants, directing traffic, and responding to emergencies and other site needs.
- ABM required guards, including during mandated 10-minute rest periods, to keep pagers/radios on, remain vigilant, and respond to calls when needed.
- ABM acknowledged it did not relieve guards of all duties during rest periods.
- Guards brought a class action alleging ABM failed to provide legally compliant rest periods because the on-call requirement prevented duty-free rest.
- The trial court certified a class, granted summary judgment for the guards on rest-period claims, and awarded roughly $90 million in damages and penalties.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning the governing provisions did not expressly forbid on-call rest breaks.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether rest periods must be off duty and whether on-call rest periods comply with California law.

## Issues

1. Whether Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 require employers to provide off-duty, duty-free rest periods.
2. Whether an employer may require employees to remain on call (reachable, vigilant, and responsive) during required rest periods.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the judgment for the guards (subject to matters not before the court).
- Rest periods required by Wage Order 4 and enforced through Labor Code § 226.7 must be off duty.
- Employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend rest breaks.
- ABM’s policy requiring guards to remain on call during rest periods violated the rest-period requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A required “rest period” must be a genuine cessation of work; labeling time as “rest” does not satisfy the obligation if duties or work constraints continue.
- Under Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 4, employers must (1) relieve employees of all duties and (2) relinquish employer control over employees’ activities during rest periods.
- An on-call requirement during rest breaks (e.g., carrying devices, remaining vigilant, responding to calls) is inconsistent with an off-duty rest period and is unlawful absent an authorized exception.
- Wage orders and related Labor Code protections are construed to serve their remedial, employee-protective purpose; courts should not create exceptions by implication.

## Conclusion

California law requires duty-free rest periods: employers must provide 10-minute rest breaks during which employees are free from duties and employer control, and policies keeping employees on call during those breaks do not comply with Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 4.


Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257, 385 P.3d 823 (Cal. 2016)