California Supreme Court Holds 24-Hour Security Guards Entitled to 24-Hours of Pay

Security guards who work eight hours per day, are on-call eight hours per day, and reside/sleep (off duty but on site) eight hours per day are entitled to be paid for the entire 24-hour time period, says the California Supreme Court.

The employer had guards placed at various construction sites to provide security. The guards spent a certain portion of each day on active patrol. At night, they were required to be on-call for eight hours at the worksite and respond to any emergencies which arose. For eight hours per day, they were off duty.

The guards were required to reside in a trailer provided by the employer at the worksite. The trailers had residential amenities and guards could keep personal items there, however, children, pets, and alcohol were prohibited, and adult guests had to be approved by the employer. If an on-call guard wanted to leave the worksite, he/she had to notify a dispatcher and advise of the length of the absence, and potentially wait for someone to come relieve him/her.

The guards were paid hourly for time spent patrolling the worksite, but were not paid for on-call time unless they responded to an alarm or had to wait for (or were denied) someone to relieve them so that they could leave the site.

The guards filed a class action lawsuit claiming that they were deprived of minimum wage and overtime pay because of the employer's on-call policy. The trial court found that the policy violated California's Wage Order No. 4 because the employer had control over the guards during on-call work hours and thus, this time was compensable. The California Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The California Supreme Court, in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., No. S212704 (January 8, 2015) , ultimately concluded that "under the California wage order covering security guards, these plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for all on-call hours spent at their assigned worksites under their employer's control." In reaching this decision, the Court held that the guards were required to reside in their trailers and spend on-call hours in their trailers or on the worksite. This was entirely under the control of the employer, and for the benefit of the employer.

In terms of sleep time, though the Court of Appeals had relied upon prior authorities to conclude that all industry-specific wage orders implicitly incorporated federal regulations which permit the exclusion of sleep time from an employee's 24-hour shifts, the Supreme Court found this to be incorrect under the circumstances. The Court declined to incorporate the federal standard regarding compensable time absent convincing evidence of the IWC's intention to do so. As a result, the Court concluded that the wage order also does not permit the exclusion of sleep time from compensable hours worked in 24-hour shifts covered by the wage order.

In sum, the Court of Appeals' determination that the guards' on-call time was compensable was upheld and affirmed. The determination that the employer was permitted to exclude sleep time from the guards' shifts, however, was reversed. This means that under these circumstances, all 24-hours are compensable for the guards at issue in this case.

Employers with employees who work 24-hour shifts should consult with counsel to ensure that such individuals are properly paid pursuant to applicable state and federal authorities, as this case demonstrates the differences between state and federal regulations and requirements for employees' pay.  With questions, contact Hinshaw's San Francisco office.

 With questions, contact Hinshaw's San Francisco office.