When Does Employer-Controlled Time Count as Payable Work Under California Law?

A California Supreme Court decision clarified when employer-controlled time at a construction worksite counts as compensable work time, including certain security-check delays, some on-premises travel, and meal periods restricted by employer rules.

Case: Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors (Cal. 2024)

Court: Northern District of California / Supreme Court of California

Case/Docket No.: 5:18-cv-06761-BLF / S275431

An Overview of the Case: Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors

The case arose from work at the California Flats Solar Project, a large solar power facility in Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. George Huerta worked there through a subcontractor assisting CSI Electrical Contractors, which provided procurement, installation, construction, and testing services at the site. The California Supreme Court explained that workers accessed the site through a guard shack and a separate security gate located several miles from the employee parking lots, and that Huerta was told by CSI management that the security gate was the “first place” he had to be at the beginning of the workday.

Each morning, workers lined up in personal vehicles outside the security gate while guards scanned badges and sometimes looked inside vehicles and truck beds. Each evening, workers again waited in line at the gate while the exit procedure was carried out. The Court noted that the exit delays could last from five minutes to more than 30 minutes. Workers were not paid for this time. After passing through the gate in the morning, workers still had to drive another 10 to 15 minutes to the employee parking lots while following site rules and restrictions tied in part to an environmental permit and in part to employer instructions. Workers were also not paid for that drive.

Main Issues in the California Wage and Hour Lawsuit:

The case also involved meal periods. Huerta’s employment was governed by collective bargaining agreements that provided for an unpaid 30-minute meal period. But CSI did not allow workers to leave the site during the workday and instructed them to take their meal periods in a designated area near their assigned work site. Huerta alleged that, as in the past, she should have been compensated under California law.

The Main Legal Issue the Court Needed to Address:

The legal problem was how to interpret “hours worked” and “employer-mandated travel” under Wage Order No. 16, which governs wages, hours, and working conditions in the construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries. The federal district court had granted summary judgment against Huerta on the relevant class claims, but the Ninth Circuit concluded that California law needed clarification on several important points. The Ninth Circuit therefore certified three questions to the California Supreme Court. The first asked whether time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to scan an identification badge, undergo visual inspection, and exit through the security gate was compensable as “hours worked.” The second asked whether time spent driving between the security gate and the employee parking lots was compensable either as “hours worked” or as “employer-mandated travel.” The third asked whether time spent on the employer’s premises during a nominally unpaid meal period — when workers were prohibited from leaving but were not otherwise assigned employer-directed tasks — was compensable.

Does Time Workers Spend “Waiting” Count as Hours Worked?

The California Supreme Court answered the first question in Huerta’s favor. It held that the time workers spent waiting for and undergoing the employer-mandated exit procedure at the security gate was compensable as “hours worked” under Wage Order No. 16. The Court reasoned that CSI’s required badge scan and vehicle inspection showed a sufficient level of employer control over workers during that exit process.

On the second question, the Court drew an important distinction. It held that the drive between the security gate and employee parking lots may be compensable as “employer-mandated travel” under Wage Order No. 16 if the security gate was the first place workers had to report for an employment-related reason beyond simply accessing the worksite. But the Court separately held that the same driving time was not compensable as “hours worked” merely because employees had to follow ordinary workplace rules during the drive, such as speed limits, route restrictions, and rules against disturbing wildlife. Those restrictions, the Court said, did not amount to the level of employer control needed for “hours worked” treatment.

On the third question, the Court again ruled in favor of compensation. It held that even if a qualifying collective bargaining agreement designates a meal period as unpaid, the time is still compensable as “hours worked” when the employer prohibits employees from leaving the premises or a designated area, and that restriction prevents them from engaging in otherwise feasible personal activities. The Court also held that an employee may bring an action under Labor Code section 1194 to enforce the wage order and recover unpaid wages for such time.

Why the Case Matters for Today’s California Employees

This case matters because it gives much clearer guidance on what counts as compensable time in large, controlled worksites — especially in construction and similar industries. It confirms that employer-mandated exit inspections are not automatically treated as noncompensable downtime just because employees are in personal vehicles at the end of the day. Where the employer controls the process and requires workers to remain for an inspection-related exit procedure, that time may count as “hours worked.” It also matters because the Court carefully separated two legal theories that are often blurred together: “hours worked” and “employer-mandated travel.” That distinction gives employers and employees a more precise framework for evaluating on-premises travel time. And the ruling on meal periods is especially important because it shows that labeling a break “unpaid” in a collective bargaining agreement is not always enough if the employee is still effectively confined in a way that prevents meaningful personal use of the time. For present-day litigants, Huerta is a strong precedent in cases involving security checkpoints, travel between controlled site locations, restricted access rules, and meal-period confinement. It is especially useful where an employer argues that workers were technically off the clock even though employer-imposed procedures substantially controlled their time.

FAQ About the Huerta “Hours Worked” Case

Q: What was the main issue in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors?

A: The case asked when time spent under employer control at a construction site counts as compensable work time under Wage Order No. 16, including security-gate delays, on-premises driving, and restricted meal periods.

Q: What did the workers have to do at the security gate?

A: They had to wait in line, scan identification badges, and sometimes undergo visual inspection of their vehicles or truck beds before exiting the site.

Q: Did the California Supreme Court say that security-gate exit time was compensable?

A: Yes. The Court held that time spent awaiting and undergoing the employer-mandated exit procedure at the security gate was compensable as “hours worked.”

Q: Was the drive between the security gate and the parking lots compensable?

A: Potentially yes, but under a specific theory. The Court held that the drive may be compensable as “employer-mandated travel” if the gate was the first place workers had to report for an employment-related reason other than mere access to the worksite.

Q: Did the Court also say that the same driving time was “hours worked”?

A: No. The Court held that the ordinary site rules imposed during that drive did not create the level of employer control necessary to make the driving time compensable as “hours worked.”

Q: What did the Court decide about meal periods?

A: The Court held that a meal period can still be compensable as “hours worked” even if a collective bargaining agreement calls it unpaid, so long as the employer prohibits workers from leaving the premises or a designated area and that restriction prevents feasible personal activities.

Q: Why is Huerta important for California wage-and-hour law?

A: It is important because it clarifies how California courts should analyze employer-controlled time in construction and similar industries, especially where workers face site-access controls, travel restrictions, and confined meal periods.

Q: Is Huerta only relevant to construction workers?

A: The case specifically interprets Wage Order No. 16, which governs certain on-site occupations in construction, drilling, logging, and mining. Its reasoning about employer control and compensable time may still be informative in other California wage-order settings, though the specific holding is tied to Wage Order No. 16.

In California wage-and-hour law, time does not stop being potentially compensable just because an employee is in a vehicle, between work locations, or nominally on a break. When employer-imposed rules and procedures meaningfully control that time, workers may still have a right to pay under the governing wage order. If you believe your employer required you to spend unpaid time complying with security procedures, controlled on-site travel, or meal-period restrictions, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can assess whether your rights may have been violated under California employment law.