- 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
- 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 Disputes
-
June 16, 2021Robins Kaplan Receives High Ranks from Managing Intellectual Property Magazine in 2021; Six Partners Recognized as “IP Stars”
-
June 8. 2021Robins Kaplan Attorneys Named To 2021 “Southern California Rising Stars” List
-
June 7, 2021Robins Kaplan Welcomes Seasoned Insurance Litigator
-
June 28, 2021Pride Month CLE
-
September 23, 202119th Annual Golf Tournamet
-
October 7, 2021New York Women in Antitrust Group Spotlight Series
-
June 8, 2021Written Description in the Life Sciences: The Devil is in the Details
-
Spring 2021Summary of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights Hearing, Antitrust Applied
-
Spring 2021Duty to Third Parties: Focus on Foreseeability
-
June 17, 2021Financial Daily Dose 6.17.2021 | Top Story: Fed Speeds Up Timetable for Rate Hikes Based on Stronger Economic Outlook
-
June 16, 2021Financial Daily Dose 6.16.2021 | Top Story: Big Tech Critic and Antitrust Scholar Khan Named New FTC Chair
-
June 15, 2021Financial Daily Dose 6.15.2021 | Top Story: Troubled E-Truck Start-up Lordstown Motors’ CEO and CFO Resign After Board Investigation
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 Executive Board;
Pro Bono Chair, Los Angeles Office;
Member of the Firm's Diversity Committee
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.