Recently, a $90 million award against ABM Security was overturned by a California appeals court after the court found that the facts of the case were indisputable. The security company provided security guards with regular rest breaks, and the guards took them. In question was whether it was lawful for the security company to require the guards to leave radios/pagers on during these breaks, in addition to responding to security issues as needed while on break.

Essentially, plaintiffs in the case, which went to trial almost three years ago, claimed that ABM Security was not in compliance with California law because the company required guards to remain “on call” even during rest breaks. Plaintiffs maintained that during rest breaks, they should be relieved of all duties and not be required to respond to security issues, or leave pagers and radios on during these breaks. Following a lengthy court battle, plaintiffs in the case, Augustus v. ABM Security, which included thousands of former and current security guards with the company, were awarded a summary judgment.

The appeals court found that while meal breaks, or breaks that are unpaid, do not require security guards to remain on call, rest breaks do not require that employees are relieved of being on duty, only that security guards are relieved of performing actual work while on rest breaks under state law. The appeals court determined that being on call did not mean that employees perform work, however being available to work was not one and the same as performing actual work. The Court also noted that security guards for ABM engaged in activities such as making personal telephone calls and surfing the Internet while on rest break.

Ultimately, the California appeals court specified that meal breaks required that guards or employees are relieved of all duty in regards to work, while the definition of rest breaks contained no similar language.

What did this mean for employers? The bottom line is that while Department of Labor Standards Enforcement opinions and prior court rulings do not agree in regards to the extent of control employers have over employees during rest breaks, employers are not required to relieve employees of all duties during these breaks, but cannot require that security guards or other employees perform actual work.

As experienced Los Angeles employment lawyers, we realize the issues employers face in regards to employment policies and issues. For unsurpassed legal guidance and support, trust the skilled and dedicated staff at Spotora & Associates.

You are excited about owning a franchise, have asked those you know who are franchisees about their experiences and success, and perhaps have already begun work on your business plan. Is this enough, or do you need to do more to protect ensure you are protected from a legal standpoint? The quick answer – you need to hire an experienced Los Angeles franchise lawyer. Here are a few of the reasons why taking this step is so important to your success.

Franchise attorneys understand what really matters. From FDD’s or Franchise Disclosure Documents to contracts, lawyers who focus in this area of the law know what is essential to ensuring you are up-to-date with the latest franchise laws, and the various restrictions/obligations you must abide by as a franchise owner in order to avoid termination.

Guidance on how to set up your franchise business. Few franchisees understand the various options when it comes to setting up their business as a C-Corporation, LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), or Subchapter S Corporations. What are the differences, and which is best in your situation in regards to how your business will be taxed? A skilled franchise lawyer in LA can provide the guidance you need in this area of your business.

When it looks like you are destined to fail, you need an attorney’s expertise. You never expected your franchise to fail, but it does happen – all too frequently, unfortunately. The location you chose may not have been the best, or you failed to profit fast enough to stay in the game. Perhaps the franchisor is partially to blame for the failure of your business. Franchisors have a responsibility to help franchisees with the “ins and outs” of the business in regards to location, the development of new services or products, the success of other franchisees, competitive factors such as price, and other details. Another reason it’s important to hire a capable franchise lawyer – and to thoroughly read and understand the FDD.

Those involved tell you that hiring an attorney will be a waste of money. If there is one red flag in owning a franchise, this is it! Franchise developers often advise potential franchisees that the agreement contains no negotiable terms, so hiring a lawyer will simply be a waste of money. Essentially, the top priority of the franchisor is to get the agreement signed, without a professional reading over the terms to advise you of any potential problems or issues that may in fact be negotiable.

Are you considering a franchising opportunity? Going forward with this type of business opportunity involves a certain level of uncertainty and stress. By hiring a qualified Los Angeles franchise lawyer, you will enjoy peace of mind – not to mention a more restful sleep at night.

Recently, ten former employees of three McDonald’s franchises located in Virginia and owned by the same man filed a civil rights lawsuit, claiming racial discrimination. According to a news report at CNN, approximately 15 African-American workers were terminated on the same day in May of 2014 following the hiring of a substantial number of employees who were white in March.

The plaintiffs in the suit allege that supervisors made the statement that there were “too many black people in the store.” Michael Simon, owner of the three franchise locations in Clarksville, Centerville, and Riverdale, allegedly told the fired employees that they did not “fit the profile.” When asked about the statement, Simon declined to comment.

In a media release issued by Simon after the terminations, the franchise owner said that, “At my McDonald’s restaurants, inclusion and diversity are business imperatives.” Simon went on to say that he strives constantly to provide a working environment in which employees feel accepted and valued.

Katrina Stanfield, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said that she was harassed on a frequent basis, and recalled a supervisor making the comment that it was “too dark” in the restaurant. Stanfield said that she contacted McDonald’s corporate office to report discrimination after she was terminated, but never heard back.

In December of last year, the National Labor Relations Board decided that in cases being heard regarding the rights of workers (unrelated to this racial harassment/discrimination case), McDonald’s corporation would be considered a joint employer along with the franchise owner in these types of lawsuits.

Attorney for the plaintiffs in this case, Paul Smith, claims that McDonald’s could have prevented what happened by becoming more involved. Smith also said that McDonald’s wants all of the control and profit, without the responsibility of protecting employees’ civil rights.

As highly regarded Los Angeles employment lawyers, the staff at Spotora & Associates understand that harassment and discrimination are still very much alive in the workplace today, whether in regards to sexual harassment, race or religious discrimination, even age discrimination. However, allegations of this type are often made out of malice.

Employees do have rights, and employers must adhere to certain legal requirements. Regardless of the issues you may face, it is vital to work with an experienced and capable LA employment attorney who will advocate on your behalf in an effort to reach the desired result.