Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.
| Docket Number | S224853 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2016 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
11 cases
-
Woodworth v. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Ctr.
...regulations specifying minimum requirements with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions." ( Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, 262, fn. 5 ( Augustus ).) As already explained, "[t]he IWC's wage orders are to be accorded the same dignity as statutes. They a......
-
Huerta v. CSI Elec. Contractors
...freedom to use the time "for their own purposes" if a meal period is to qualify as off-duty. (Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, 270, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 634, 385 P.3d 823; see Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1036, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513 ["‘The worker must......
-
Huerta v. CSI Elec. Contractors
...freedom to use the time "for their own purposes" if a meal period is to qualify as off-duty. (Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, 270, 211 Cal. Rptr.3d 634, 385 P.3d 823; see Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1036, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513 [" ‘The worker mu......
-
Rubalcaba v. R&L Carriers Shared Servs.
...of reh'g (Mar. 15, 2017) - does not necessarily appear to view such a requirement as dispositive indicia of employer control. In fact, “Augustus is explicit that policy that prohibits employees from leaving the properties during rest periods - without more - ‘is not sufficient to establish ......
Get Started for Free
7 firm's commentaries
-
Discounted meal policy requiring employees to stay on company premises upheld
...that “an employer may so burden the use of employee’s break time that the employees must be considered ‘on duty.’” The court explained: In Augustus, the employees were required to carry a device so that the employer could reach the employee during the break if services were needed. Augustus......
-
Labor and Employment Update for 2021
...& EMPLOYMENT SEMINARLimited Industry-Specific Rest Break Exceptions(Lab. Code §§226.7, 226.75): Limited Abrogation of Augustus v. ABM Security Servs, Inc. 2 Cal. 5th257 (2016)•Security Guards Registered Under Private Security Services Act (AB 1512)•Security guards can be required to: -R......
-
California Supreme Court Issues Narrow Holding In De Minimis Case, Leaving Many Issues Unresolved
...time was too significant and regular to be excused as de minimis. The Court also held that its prior decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016) implicitly decides that there are no de minimis exceptions to the requirement to provide exactly 10 minutes or more......
-
Pen Down, Governor Newsom: California's Newest Employment Laws
...for the security services industry only, the California Supreme Court's decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, to the extent that decision is in conflict with this Certain Petroleum Workers: Rest Periods. AB 2479 extends, past January 1, 2021 and until Jan......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Wage and Hour Case Notes
...Cal. App. 5th 746 (2021).3. Woodworth v. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Ctr., 93 Cal. App. 5th 1038 (2023).4. Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016).5. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022).6. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16.7. Westmoreland v. Kindercare Educ. LLC., 90 Cal. A......