Top
Stories
Blog: The Practical Employer Reality Bites: Fox Debuts New Workplace Reality Show May 24, 2013
Blog: The Ethical Workplace Restoring Workplace Trust, Part II May 23, 2013
Latest News Disaster Preparedness: Tornadoes May 22, 2013
Blog: The Practical Employer Email Surveillance as Evidence of Retaliation May 22, 2013
Latest News Workforce Software Gets to Work Abroad May 21, 2013
Blog: The Practical Employer Social Media is the Digital Water Cooler May 21, 2013
Blog: The Practical Employer Fired for Suing an Ex-Employer? Court Rejects Public Policy Claim May 20, 2013
Featured Article Explaining Exchanges May 17, 2013
Featured Article Breaking Down the Language Barrier May 16, 2013
Featured Article Now, You’re Speaking My Language May 16, 2013
Latest News

Security Guards Awarded $89.7M in Rest-Break Class Action

At issue in the litigation was that guards were given 'on-duty' breaks during which they were required to keep their cellphones or pagers on.

  • Comments (0)
Related Topics:

A California judge on July 6 awarded about 15,000 former and present security guards of ABM Security Services Inc. $89.7 million in wages, interest and penalties in a class action lawsuit filed over the issue of rest breaks.

At issue in the litigation, which began in July 2005, was that guards were given "on-duty" breaks during which they were required to keep their cellphones or pagers on, according to court papers in the case, Jennifer Augustus vs. American Commercial Social Security Services et al. ACSS is a subsidiary of New York-based ABM.

The company "balks at the notion that the employer must relieve workers of all duties for the rest break to be legally valid," said Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John S. Wiley in his ruling. "Put simply, if you are on call, you are not on break. That has been the law for many years," said Wiley, who also denied the company's motion to decertify the class.

"Substantively, California's labor law gave advance notice of the penalties for depriving workers of rest breaks," said Wiley. "Those penalties are straightforward and chastening. When the view is clear and the exposure chastening, the rational hiker steers clear of the edge of the cliff. ACCS broke the law and must pay according to that law. That is the rule of law and not a violation of due process."

Drew Pomerance, a partner with Roxborough Pomerance Nye and Adreani L.L.P. in Los Angeles who represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement, "ABM's conduct is the poster child for how California businesses should not behave, and it's very satisfying to see a court finally hold them accountable."

ABM general counsel Sarah McConnell said in a statement, "We will vigorously pursue our right to appeal because we firmly disagree with today's ruling, its interpretation of California rest period law and California class certification standards. We contend that we provide our workers with rest breaks conforming to both the letter and spirit of the law."

Leave A Comment

Guidelines: Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content you post.

Stay Connected

Join our community for unlimited access to the latest tips, news and information in the HR world.

Follow Workforce on Twitter
HR Jobs
View All Job Listings

Search