join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.

Articles Discussing Case:

Employees on Rest Breaks Must Be Off Duty, California Supreme Court Rules

Jackson Lewis P.C. • December 29, 2016
A class of security guards received an early holiday present from the California Supreme Court on December 22.

The “Opposite of Work”: California Supreme Court Issues On-Call Rest Break Ruling

Ogletree Deakins • December 27, 2016
On December 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of California ruled that California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. According to the court, “[d]uring required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time.” Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., No. S224853, Supreme Court of California (December 22, 2016).

Boon to New Jersey Employers: State Supreme Court Confirms that Federal Faragher/Ellerth "Affirmative Defense" Now Applies to Sexual Harassment Claims Under State Law

FordHarrison LLP • February 12, 2015
Executive Summary: On February 11, 2015, New Jersey's Supreme Court formally decided an important issue left open for nearly two decades concerning New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD). In Aguas v. State of New Jersey, __ N.J. __, No. 072467 (2015), the state's highest court definitively held that an employer can rely upon the company's anti-harassment policy as an "affirmative defense" to an employee's claims of negligence or vicarious liability brought under the LAD. In doing so, the Court aligns the standard for employer liability under the LAD with that set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark 1998 decisions, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth. A copy of the decision is available here.

New California Court of Appeal Opinion Provides Guidance on Rest Breaks

FordHarrison LLP • February 02, 2015
Executive Summary: On January 29, 2015, a California appeals court published a modified version of an opinion examining, in part, an employer's obligation under the state's rest break requirements. Critically, the opinion concludes that the rest break requirement only prescribes that an employee not be required to work on a rest break, not that he or she be relieved of all duties. The opinion provides much needed guidance to employers in understanding the distinction between California's meal and rest break requirements.