Title: Augustus v. ABM Security Services
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S224853M
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: June 8, 2017

Filed 3/15/17 (Posted on 6/8/17 due to inadvertent omission) 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
JENNIFER AUGUSTUS et al., 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiffs and Respondents, 
) 
 
 
) 
S224853 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/1 B243788, B247392 
ABM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., 
) 
 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. BC336426, 
 
 
) 
BC345918, and CG5444421 
 
____________________________________) 
 
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND 
DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING 
THE COURT: 
The opinion in this matter filed on December 22, 2016, and appearing at 2 Cal.5th 
257, is modified as follows:   
 
1.  Add the following sentence to the end of the Conclusion on page 
273:  “The matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings 
consistent with this opinion.” 
 
This sentence should be placed so that it is the final sentence in the Conclusion 
 
and so that the complete Conclusion reads as follows: 
 
California law requires employers to relieve their employees of all 
work-related duties and employer control during 10-minute rest periods.  
The trial court’s summary adjudication and summary judgment orders 
were premised on this understanding of the law.  Rightly so: Wage 
Order 4, subdivision 12(A) and section 226.7 prohibit on-duty rest 
2 
periods. What they require instead is that employers relinquish any 
control over how employees spend their break time, and relieve their 
employees of all duties—including the obligation that an employee 
remain on call.  A rest period, in short, must be a period of rest.  We 
accordingly reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment on this issue.  The 
matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings 
consistent with this opinion. 
 
 
This modification does not affect the judgment. 
 
 
The petition for rehearing, filed on January 5, 2017, is denied.