Monday, July 6, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Employer Can’t Ban Leaving Premises During Breaks
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A company that required its employees to remain on the premises during 15-minute breaks ran afoul of a requirement that employers not exercise control over activities engaged in during rest periods, the Third District Court of Appeal declared yesterday, broadening a 2016 holding by the California Supreme Court and, as the appellant sees it, contracting that decision.
Former Optum360 Services, Inc. employee Tasha Wallace sued the company under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, asserting that she was denied the benefit of breaks by virtue of a directive in 2016 or 2017 that employers not leave the building or parking lot during those periods. She claimed that this violated Title 9, §11040(12)A) which provides:
“Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof.”
Wallace cited case law that employers must not control the employees’ movements during the breaks.
An arbitrator, San Francisco attorney Carol Marshall, awarded her $11.269.44 in damages and penalties, $79,558.50 in attorney’s fees, and $3,439.15 in costs. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lauri Damrell confirmed the award.
Affirmance came in an unpublished opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Louis Mauro, who said:
“[T]he evidence supports the conclusion that Optimi360”s on-premises rest period directive prevented employees from engaging in activities they could have otherwise engaged in if they had been permitted to leave, and thus constituted proscribed employer control.”
Employer’s View
Optum360 argued that Wallace admitted that she “could do anything” during the breaks except leaving the premises. It argued that Marshall “adopted a new legal rule—one unsupported by statute or precedent—that on-premises rest period policies are categorically unlawful,” commenting:
“No California or federal court has adopted such a rule. While a few federal district court cases have questioned certain on-site policies, they have done so only where there was evidence of additional restrictions, such as confining employees to specific break areas. There is no such evidence here.”
It maintained that Wallace exceeded her powers by ignoring precedent.
Supreme Court Opinion
Optum360 pointed to the California Supreme Court’s 2016 opinion in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. There, it was held that a security company, ABM, that required guards to keep their pagers and radio phones on during rest periods violated the requirement that obligations to work may not be imposed during breaks.
Then-Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar said in Augustus:
“Because rest periods are 10 minutes in length…, they impose practical limitations on an employee’s movement. That is, during a rest period an employee generally can travel at most five minutes from a work post before returning to make it back on time. Thus, one would expect that employees will ordinarily have to remain on site or nearby. This constraint, which is of course common to all rest periods, is not sufficient to establish employer control.”
Cuéllar continued:
“But now add to this state of affairs the additional constraints imposed by on-call arrangements. Whatever else being on call entails in the context of a required rest break, that status compels employees to remain at the ready and capable of being summoned to action….Employees forced to remain on call during a 10-minute rest period must fulfill certain duties: carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests. These obligations are irreconcilable with employees’ retention of freedom to use rest periods for their own purposes.”
Optum360’s Position
Optum360 argued:
[T]he dispositive factor in Augustus was not the requirement that employees remain onsite, but the on-call duties imposed on the security guards. Augustus emphasized that it was these ‘additional constraints’ that were ‘irreconcilable with employees’ retention of freedom to use rest periods for their own purposes.’…(emphasis added).
“Indeed, if an on-premises policy were per se unlawful, there would have been no need for the Court to analyze whether ABM’s other requirements—such as on-call duties—constituted impermissible control. The fact that the Court proceeded with this inquiry confirms that an on- premises policy, without additional control or duties, does not violate California law.”
Third District’s Holding
Mauro responded:
“The employer policy in Augustus did not require employees to remain on site during rest periods, and the Supreme Court did not address in that case the lawfulness of an employer on-premises rest period directive or a directive otherwise restricting employee movement during rest periods.”
He pointed to the state high court’s 2024 opinion in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors where it was held that an employer’s requirement that employees remain on the premises during meal breaks constituted unlawful control of activities. Mauro wrote:
“Although Optum360 argues meal periods are distinguishable from the rest periods here, we find Huerta’s description of proscribed employer control apt in this case.”
Trip to Starbucks
Wallace explained that prior to the restriction going into effect, she could “easily go to Walgreens that was right around the corner” or to “Starbucks, if I needed breakfast, hot meal.”
Optum360 scoffed in its reply brief that Wallace “presented no evidence that she could have traveled to those locations, completed an errand, and returned within a 10-minute rest break—and the arbitrator expressly questioned whether that was even feasible.”
Mauro said the burden was on the employer to show the infeasibility and that it failed to do so, declaring:
“We do not consider Optum360’s assertion that those destinations were ‘functionally unreachable’ during a 15-minute rest period, because the assertion is not supported by citation to the record.… As far as we know, there was no evidence that Wallace could not reach those places and return to her workstation in 15 minutes.”
The case is Wallace v. Optiuu360 Services, C102891.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company