Can a Security Company Require Employees to Stay On Call During Meal and Rest Breaks in California?

/

California labor law does not allow a security company to keep employees on call during rest breaks and allows it during meal periods only in narrow circumstances. However, a class action filed in Alameda County in October 2024 alleges that Armorous required employees to stay on call during both. The complaint also accuses the company of off-the-clock work, rounding, and altered time records.

Case: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous
Court: Alameda County Superior Court of the State of California
Case No.: 24CV096396

Who Is the Plaintiff?

Brandon Stocker worked for Armorous from August 2023 through April 2024 as a non-exempt hourly employee. Non-exempt means he was entitled to California’s overtime, meal break, and rest break protections. He filed his class action complaint on October 18, 2024, on behalf of himself and all non-exempt employees who worked for the company in California during the four years before the filing.

Who Is the Defendant?

Armorous is a California corporation that owns and operates a security company, including in Alameda County, where Stocker worked. The complaint says the same company-wide practices affected its hourly workforce.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

The complaint asserts eight causes of action. According to the allegations, Armorous:

  • Required employees to remain on the premises, on duty, and on call during meal periods and rest breaks, including by making them carry cordless communication devices to receive work communications during what was supposed to be off-duty time.

  • Required pre-shift and post-shift work, such as sending and receiving work communications, clocking in and out, performing keyholder duties, unlocking and reopening gates, and performing security sweeps, without paying for that time.

  • Used a time-keeping system that could be altered, allegedly allowing fictitious 30-minute meal breaks to be entered so records showed breaks employees did not actually take.

  • Used an unlawful rounding policy that allegedly shaved recorded time, including overtime hours.

  • Failed to include all forms of pay, such as incentive compensation, when calculating the “regular rate of pay” used for overtime, meal and rest break premiums, and sick pay.

  • Failed to reimburse employees for personal cell phone and vehicle use and for maintaining work uniforms.

  • Failed to provide compliant paid sick leave and accurate itemized wage statements, including as of January 1, 2024.

The complaint seeks relief for the class, including unpaid wages and premiums, penalties, and an injunction against the practices described. The case number reflects a 2024 filing, and the claims have not been decided.

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central question is whether Armorous’s alleged company-wide policies denied hourly employees wages and breaks that California requires, and whether those claims can be decided together in one class action instead of employee by employee.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Employees?

Security and other shift-based workers in California workplaces are often asked to stay at their posts, which can make real breaks hard to take.

  • Employers can’t avoid break premiums just because a worker stayed on duty or on call.

  • Off-the-clock time, rounding, and miscalculated overtime add up fast across a workforce.

  • Class actions give hourly workers a practical way to challenge uniform policies.

  • Wage statements, sick leave, and expense reimbursement are separate legal duties, not afterthoughts.

FAQs: Stocker v. Armorous

Q: Can security guards be required to stay on call during rest breaks?
A: No. In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, the California Supreme Court held that employers must relieve employees of all duties during rest breaks, including the duty to remain on call. Employers can’t treat on-call time as a rest break.

Q: Can security guards be required to stay on duty during meal breaks?
A: Only in narrow circumstances. An on-duty meal period is allowed only when the nature of the work prevents the employee from being relieved of duty, the parties agree in writing, and the time is paid.

Q: What is owed if an employer doesn’t provide a meal or rest break?
A: One extra hour of pay at the worker’s regular rate for each workday a required meal period isn’t provided, and one for each workday a required rest period isn’t provided.

Q: Is off-the-clock work legal?
A: No. Time an employee works under the employer’s control must be paid, including time spent before or after a shift.

Q: What is a “regular rate of pay”?
A: It’s the rate used to calculate overtime and break premiums. It can include more than base pay, such as certain bonuses and incentive pay.

Q: What is a class action in a wage case?
A: It’s a lawsuit brought by one or more employees on behalf of a larger group with similar claims. A court must decide whether the group qualifies to proceed together.

Do You Have Questions About Breaks, Overtime, or Unpaid Time?

Stocker v. Armorous is a pending case, and its claims have not been decided. If you believe your employer didn’t provide breaks, pay all your time, or pay overtime correctly, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, and Los Angeles.