- 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
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLPTM
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
September 15, 2021Jennifer Leland Named President of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Foundation
-
September 15, 2021Roman Silberfeld Named to Annual List of Top 100 Attorneys in California
-
September 14, 2021Robins Kaplan Increases Starting Associate Salaries to $180,000
-
September 21, 2021USC Gould School of Law 2021 Intellectual Property Institute
-
September 23-24, 2021Minnesota CLE Midwest IP Institute
-
September 23, 202119th Annual Golf Tournament
-
August 26, 2021Briefly: Motions for judicial notice in the 8th Circuit
-
Summer 2021Robins Kaplan Blocks Effort by Juul and Altria to Sidestep Blame for Minnesota’s Youth Vaping Epidemic
-
Summer 2021The Chauvin Case:
A Lifting of the Veil or Only a Peek Behind the Curtain? -
September 17, 2021Financial Daily Dose 9.17.2021 | Top Story: World Bank Withdraws “Doing Business” Report After Probe Suggests Improper Influence
-
September 16, 2021Financial Daily Dose 9.16.2021 | Top Story: White House Discusses Vax Mandates With Business Leaders
-
September 15, 2021Financial Daily Dose 9.15.2021 | Top Story: CPI Shows Slowing Price Increases in August
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.