In Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 107082, published January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court held that: (1) on-call hours at a worksite represented “hours worked” for overtime purposes when the employer restricts the employee’s private pursuits, and (2) an employer was not entitled to exclude “sleep time” from calculation of hours worked (disapproving Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 361) if the employee is scheduled to be on call for 24 hours or more.
In a class action, security guards of CPS alleged that CPS’ on-call compensation policy violated minimum wage and overtime obligations imposed by Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 4–2001 and Labor Code statutes. CPS employed on-call guards to provide security at construction worksites, but did not compensate them for their on-call time unless they investigated a disturbance. Part of each guard’s day was spent on active patrol. Each evening, guards were required to be on-call at the worksite and to respond to disturbances should the need arise. While on-call, the security guards were required to spend on-call hours either in trailers at the worksite or elsewhere at the worksite, were not free to leave at will, and were obligated to respond immediately in uniform when they were contacted by a dispatcher or became aware of suspicious activity. The guards could not easily trade on-call responsibilities with each other. During on-call hours, children, pets, and alcohol were not allowed, and adult visitors were permitted only with the approval of the CPS client.
In determining that the on-call time constituted “hours worked” pursuant to Wage Order No. 4, the Supreme Court primarily focused on the level of the employer’s control during the on-call hours. Here, the Court reasoned that because the security guards’ personal activities were limited by CPS’ on-call requirements, the time spent on-call constituted “hours worked” and required compensation.
The Court also found that CPS was not entitled to exclude “sleep time” from calculation of hours worked. Unlike other Wage Orders, Wage Order No. 4 did not contain an exception to its daily overtime provision for sleep time.
This decision reminds employers, who require their employees to be available on an on-call basis, that they must closely evaluate the restrictions and control they place over their employees during the on-call time in order to determine what time must be compensated while on-call.
This document is intended to provide you with general information about employment law developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.