ABM Wage and Hour Class Action Heads to Calif. Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court has granted review of an appellate decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., which reversed a near-$90 million judgment awarded in the favor of a certified Class of current and former security guards on California labor law breaks.

In the California labor law case, Jennifer A. and other plaintiffs worked as security guards for ABM. They filed a California wage and hour class action lawsuit against ABM, alleging that the company failed to provide rest periods as required by California labor law because the company did not relieve security guards of all duties during rest breaks, but instead required its guards to remain “on call” during breaks. In the course of discovery, ABM admitted that during rest breaks it requires its security guards to keep their radios and pagers on, to remain vigilant, and to respond when needs arise or an emergency situation occurs.

The trial court concluded an employer must relieve its employees of all duties during rest breaks, including remaining “on call.” The court then granted $94 million in statutory damages, interest, penalties and attorney fees. On appeal, California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the verdict, holding that merely being “on-call” does not constitute performing “work.”

The California Supreme Court will now decide the issue.

Overview of ABM Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

The California wage and hour class action lawsuit against ABM sought compensation for wages, interest and penalties for a class of around 15,000 former and present security guards. The California wage lawsuit alleged that the company violated California labor law because the security guards were deprived of off-duty rest breaks.

The plaintiffs claimed that ABM broke California wage and hour laws by asking some employees to carry radios and remain “on call” during rest breaks. Consequently, the trial court ruled on the grounds that “California law requires employers to relieve their workers of all duty during rest breaks.”

However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the trial court’s basis of judgment, asserting that being on call does not amount to performing work. It emphasized that the California labor law only stipulates that employees should not be required to work during rest breaks, and thus the rest breaks were legitimate even when workers were responsible for some duties, like remaining on call during breaks.

California Labor Law

California labor law requires minimum compensation for all “hours worked.”  However, it also requires paid rest periods during which an employee “shall not be required to work.”

As many workers know, employers frequently pressure employees to shorten, interrupt, or work through their meal periods. Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code prohibits employers from requiring employees to work during meal or rest periods.

If you are employed in the State of California and feel that your employer has violated a federal or California employment law, you may qualify for damages that may be awarded in a possible class action or wage and hour lawsuit.

The ABM California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit is Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Case No. S224953, in the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Join a Free California Overtime, Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were forced to work off the clock or without overtime pay in California within the past 2 to 3 years, you have rights – and you don’t have to take on the company alone.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now