2 Cal. 5th 257 - Augustus v. ABM Security Services’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[D]uring a rest period an employee generally can travel at most five minutes from a work post before returning to make it back on time. Thus, one would expect that employees will ordinarily have to remain onsite or nearby. This constraint, ... common to all rest periods, is not sufficient to establish employer control. But now add to this state of affairs the additional constraints imposed by on-call arrangements. Whatever else being on call entails in the context of a required rest break, that status compels employees to remain at the ready and capable of being summoned to action (see e.g. Mendiola [ v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) ] 60 Cal.4th [833,] 837 [ 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 124 , 340 P.3d 355 ].) Employees forced to remain on call during a 10-minute rest period must fulfill certain duties: carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests. These obligations are irreconcilable with employees' retention of freedom to use rest periods for their own purposes. ( Morill i on v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575 , 586 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 3 , 995 P.2d 139 ].)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. · 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 46 - Bartoni v. Am. Med. Response W.

2. “When construing the Labor Code and wage orders, we adopt the construction that best gives effect to the purpose of the Legislature and the IWC. [Citations.] Time and again, we have characterized that purpose as the protection of employees-particularly given the extent of legislative concern about working conditions, wages, and hours when the Legislature enacted key portions of the Labor Code. [Citations.] In furtherance of that purpose, we liberally construe the Labor Code and wage orders to favor the protection of employees. [Citations.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Cal. 5th 829 - Troester v. Starbucks Corporation

3. “(Wage and Hour Manual, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (1947 ed.), Part IV, State Wage, Hour, and Child Labor Laws, §§ 2.053 & 2.53, pp. 3302, 3307 (June 1, 1947).) Much more recently, the Supreme Court held that on-call rest periods, where employees were required to keep their radios and pagers on and to respond when the need arose,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaanaana v. Barrett Bus. Servs., Inc.