- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
April 23, 2024David Martinez Recognized Among Top 100 Lawyers in Los Angeles by LA Business Journal
-
April 15, 2024Robins Kaplan Named to 2024 BTI Client Service A-Team
-
April 9, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Files Complaint Against Social Media Giants Meta, Snap, TikTok on Behalf of Spirit Lake Nation, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
-
April 30, 2024Navigating Generational Dynamics
-
May 2-3, 2024ACI Advanced Forum on Managed Care Disputes and Litigation
-
May 6, 2024Litigating with the Legends
-
First QuarterGENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
-
March 2024e-Commerce: Pitfalls and Protections
-
March 25, 2024Endo Ventures Unlimited Co. v. Nexus Pharms. Inc.
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Rest Period Compliance Guidance
March 8, 2017
Last year, the California Supreme Court held that employer’s discretion to provide employees with on-duty meal periods does not apply to rest periods. Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs. Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016). The Supreme Court had previously outlined an employer’s obligation to provide meal periods in Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1017 (2012). Augustus clarifies Brinker by holding that employees cannot be required to be “on call” during rest periods. This holding provides valuable insight for California employers.
Reprinted with permission from the Daily Journal. ©2017 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
David Martinez
Partner
Member of the Executive Board;
Member of the Firm's Diversity Committee;
Pro Bono Chair, Los Angeles Office
Christina M. Lincoln, MLIS
Partner
Co-Chair, Women of Robins Kaplan (WoRK) Resource Group
Pronouns: she/her
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.