on-premises living requirement in California

2024“It is well established that an employee’s on-call or standby time may require compensation.” (Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 7 60 Cal.4th 833, 840 (Mendiola).) “California courts considering whether on-call time constitutes hours worked have primarily focused on the extent of the employer’s control. [Citations.] Indeed, [the California Supreme Court has] stated that ‘[t]he level of the employer’s control over its employees . . . is determinative’ in resolving the issue.” (Ibid.)2 “Courts have identified various factors bearing on an employer’s control during on-call time: ‘“(

2023(Armour & Co. v. Wantock (1944) 323 U.S. 126, 132 [ 89 L.Ed. 118 , 65 S.Ct. 165 ] [time firefighters spent on call in the onsite fire hall was compensable, even though they spent time in ‘idleness’ and ‘amusements’].) A determination of whether the on-call waiting time is spent predominantly for the employer’s benefit depends on two considerations: (1) the parties’ agreement, and (2) the degree to which the employee is free to engage in personal activities.” (Gomez v. Lincare, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 508, 523 (Gomez).) The Gomez court considered a “nonexclusive list of factors, none of whi

2024“It is well established that an employee’s on-call or standby time may require compensation.” (Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 7 60 Cal.4th 833, 840 (Mendiola).) “California courts considering whether on-call time constitutes hours worked have primarily focused on the extent of the employer’s control. [Citations.] Indeed, [the California Supreme Court has] stated that ‘[t]he level of the employer’s control over its employees . . . is determinative’ in resolving the issue.” (Ibid.)2 “Courts have identified various factors bearing on an employer’s control during on-call time: ‘“(

2013(Skidmore v. Swift & Co., supra, 323 U.S. at p. 137; Gomez v. Lincare, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 508, 523 ; Berry v. County of Sonoma (9th Cir. 1994) 30 F.3d 1174 , 1180-1181.) Courts also consider whether the restrictions on the employee‟s time “are primarily directed toward the fulfillment of the employer‟s requirements and policies,” and whether the time “is so substantially restricted that [the employees] are unable to engage in private pursuits.” (Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera (1984) 36 17 Cal.3d 403 , 409.) In resolving the degree to which employees are able to engage

2013(Skidmore v. Swift & Co., supra, 323 U.S. at p. 137; Gomez v. Lincare, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 508, 523 ; Berry v. County of Sonoma (9th Cir. 1994) 30 F.3d 1174 , 1180-1181.) Courts also consider whether the restrictions on the employee‟s time “are primarily directed toward the fulfillment of the employer‟s requirements and policies,” and whether the time “is so substantially restricted that [the employees] are unable to engage in private pursuits.” (Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera (1984) 36 17 Cal.3d 403 , 409.) In resolving the degree to which employees are able to engage

2011Allowing plaintiffs the circumscribed activities of reading or sleeping does not affect, much less eliminate, the control [the employer] exercises by requiring them to travel on its buses and by prohibiting them from effectively using their travel time for their own purposes.” (Ibid.) Factors to consider in evaluating the level of control exerted by the employer include: “ ‘(1) whether there was an on-premises living requirement; (2) whether there were excessive geographical restrictions on employee’s movements; (3) whether the frequency of calls was unduly restrictive; (4) whether a fixed tim

2013(Skidmore v. Swift & Co., supra, 323 U.S. at p. 137; Gomez v. Lincare, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 508, 523 ; Berry v. County of Sonoma (9th Cir. 1994) 30 F.3d 1174 , 1180-1181.) Courts also consider whether the restrictions on the employee‟s time “are primarily directed toward the fulfillment of the employer‟s requirements and policies,” and whether the time “is so substantially restricted that [the employees] are unable to engage in private pursuits.” (Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera (1984) 36 17 Cal.3d 403 , 409.) In resolving the degree to which employees are able to engage

2011Allowing plaintiffs the circumscribed activities of reading or sleeping does not affect, much less eliminate, the control [the employer] exercises by requiring them to travel on its buses and by prohibiting them from effectively using their travel time for their own purposes.” (Ibid.) Factors to consider in evaluating the level of control exerted by the employer include: “ ‘(1) whether there was an on-premises living requirement; (2) whether there were excessive geographical restrictions on employee’s movements; (3) whether the frequency of calls was unduly restrictive; (4) whether a fixed tim

2024“It is well established that an employee’s on-call or standby time may require compensation.” (Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 7 60 Cal.4th 833, 840 (Mendiola).) “California courts considering whether on-call time constitutes hours worked have primarily focused on the extent of the employer’s control. [Citations.] Indeed, [the California Supreme Court has] stated that ‘[t]he level of the employer’s control over its employees . . . is determinative’ in resolving the issue.” (Ibid.)2 “Courts have identified various factors bearing on an employer’s control during on-call time: ‘“(

2024“It is well established that an employee’s on-call or standby time may require compensation.” (Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 7 60 Cal.4th 833, 840 (Mendiola).) “California courts considering whether on-call time constitutes hours worked have primarily focused on the extent of the employer’s control. [Citations.] Indeed, [the California Supreme Court has] stated that ‘[t]he level of the employer’s control over its employees . . . is determinative’ in resolving the issue.” (Ibid.)2 “Courts have identified various factors bearing on an employer’s control during on-call time: ‘“(

2023(Armour & Co. v. Wantock (1944) 323 U.S. 126, 132 [ 89 L.Ed. 118 , 65 S.Ct. 165 ] [time firefighters spent on call in the onsite fire hall was compensable, even though they spent time in ‘idleness’ and ‘amusements’].) A determination of whether the on-call waiting time is spent predominantly for the employer’s benefit depends on two considerations: (1) the parties’ agreement, and (2) the degree to which the employee is free to engage in personal activities.” (Gomez v. Lincare, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 508, 523 (Gomez).) The Gomez court considered a “nonexclusive list of factors, none of whi

2023(Armour & Co. v. Wantock (1944) 323 U.S. 126, 132 [ 89 L.Ed. 118 , 65 S.Ct. 165 ] [time firefighters spent on call in the onsite fire hall was compensable, even though they spent time in ‘idleness’ and ‘amusements’].) A determination of whether the on-call waiting time is spent predominantly for the employer’s benefit depends on two considerations: (1) the parties’ agreement, and (2) the degree to which the employee is free to engage in personal activities.” (Gomez v. Lincare, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 508, 523 (Gomez).) The Gomez court considered a “nonexclusive list of factors, none of whi

2015According to [the definition of hours worked], that employee must be paid.’ ” (Id. at p. 583.) *841 Courts have identified various factors bearing on an employer’s control during on-call time: “ ‘(1) whether there was an on-premises living requirement; (2) whether there were excessive geographical restrictions on employee’s movements; (3) whether the frequency of calls was unduly restrictive; (4) whether a fixed time limit for response was unduly restrictive; (5) whether the on-call employee could easily trade on-call responsibilities; (6) whether use of a pager could ease restrictions; and (7

2015According to [the definition of hours worked], that employee must be paid.’ ” (Id. at p. 583.) *841 Courts have identified various factors bearing on an employer’s control during on-call time: “ ‘(1) whether there was an on-premises living requirement; (2) whether there were excessive geographical restrictions on employee’s movements; (3) whether the frequency of calls was unduly restrictive; (4) whether a fixed time limit for response was unduly restrictive; (5) whether the on-call employee could easily trade on-call responsibilities; (6) whether use of a pager could ease restrictions; and (7