Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.

Case Updates

The Court of Appeal held that ABM did not violate the California wage and hour laws by requiring security guards to be available to respond to their radios and pagers during rest breaks. The court explained that California law does not require employers to relieve their workers of all duty during rest breaks, but instead requires only that employees not be required to work during their rest breaks. According to the Court of Appeal, an employee’s obligation to be available to respond to radios and pagers during a rest break is consistent with California law because “remaining available to work is not the same as actually working.”

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber urged the California Court of Appeals to affirm a trial court’s class action decertification. The trial court found that the plaintiffs did not show the uniform application of a common employment policy. The brief details the dangers of permitting class certification when the plaintiff challenges employment policies that either are not uniform or are not consistently applied, and of permitting statistical sampling to preclude individual defenses to liability and damages.

The Chamber filed the brief jointly with the National Association of Security Companies and the California Association of Licensed Security Agencies.

John A. Taylor, Jr. Felix Shafir and Robert H. Wright of Horitz & Levy, LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the National Chamber Litigation Center.