- Affirmative Recovery
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- 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
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
September 18, 2020Teresa Fariss Mcclain Recognized as Woman worth Watching by Profiles in Diversity Journal
-
September 17, 2020Robins Kaplan LLP Files New Lawsuit Against Delbarton School and the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey on behalf of Survivors of Child Sex Abuse
-
September 17, 2020Roman Silberfeld Named to Annual List of Top 100 Attorneys in California
-
September 23, 202010th Annual Disability Justice Seminar
-
September 24, 2020Human Rights Campaign National Virtual Event: Unite for Equality
-
September 26, 20202020 Virtual Walk Like MADD Minnesota
-
August 24, 2020Hot off the Presses: California Further Regulates Out-of-State Adjusters in the Wake of Record-Breaking Catastrophic Losses
-
August 26, 2020INSIGHT: Avoiding Trade Secret Claims After Seeing a Competitor’s Crown Jewels
-
Fall 2020Conservation Easement Deductions: How Recent Tax Law Developments Have Created A New Area of Legal Malpractice Litigation
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;
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.