Jan. 11, 2015 California Supreme Court: On-Call Employees Required to Sleep on Employer's Premises Must Be Paid
On January 8 the California Supreme Court held that security guards who spend eight hours of their 24-hour shifts sleeping on their employer's premises must be paid for that sleep time.
CPS Security Solutions employed guards to provide security at construction sites. CPS required the guards to live on-site in residential trailers equipped with beds, bathrooms, kitchens, heating and air conditioning. On weekdays, guards worked 16-hour shifts consisting of eight hours on patrol and eight hours on-call. On weekends, they worked 24-hour shifts consisting of 16 hours on patrol and eight hours of on-call "sleep time."
During on-call shifts, guards were required to remain on site. They were not allowed to have children, pets, or alcohol on site, and had to obtain the approval of the CPS client to receive adult visitors. CPS did not pay the guards for any on-call time unless they were asked to perform work.
In 2008 guards filed class action lawsuits, arguing that Wage Order 4 required CPS to pay them for all the on-call time, including sleep time. The trial court agreed, finding all the guards' on-call time was compensable "hours worked." CPS appealed, citing previous appellate decisions, including Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., a 2011 case approving the exclusion of "sleep time" based in part on a federal regulation (29 CFR 785.22) that authorizes employers to enter into agreements with employees working 24-hour shifts to designate up to eight hours as on-call "sleep time" and exclude it from compensable "hours worked."
The California Supreme Court held that all the guards' on-call time - including the "sleep time" - constituted compensable "hours worked." The Court noted the absence of any language in Wage Order 4 justifying a sleep time exclusion (unlike Wage Order 9, which provides a sleep time exclusion for ambulance drivers and attendants). The court expressly "disapproved" Seymore v. Metson Marine as wrongly decided, finding no justification for incorporating the federal regulation into California law given California's broader definition of "hours worked," which includes not only working time but also time an employee is "subject to the control" of an employer.
What This Means
Employers who have unpaid on-call time should review whether the impacted employees are sufficiently restricted such that they need to be paid, or the employees' restrictions reduced, to meet the requirements of this new ruling.
This E-Update was authored by Aaron Buckley. For more information, please contact Mr. Buckley or any other Paul, Plevin attorney by calling (619) 237-5200.