Insights
Publications

California Court Provides No On-Call Pay For Apartment House Managers Restricted To Their Residence

3/21/2008 Articles

This week, the California Court of Appeals addressed a wage topic that arises in a wide variety of workplaces - payment for on-call time.  In Isner v. Falkenberg / Gilliam Associates, Inc., No. BC353432 (Mar. 18, 2008), the court held that residential apartment managers are only entitled to be paid for hours spent actually rendering services, not for all hours they are on call in their own residence. 

Plaintiffs Ron and Sharon Isner were resident employees, working at various times for any of three properties owned by their employer, Falkenberg / Gilliam & Associates, a property management company.  When they were on call, they had to stay within hearing distance of their phone or alarm system, so that they could respond to emergencies from other residents.  This allowed them to remain in their own apartment and do whatever they liked there as long as they could hear and respond to any alarms and did not leave the premises.  Furthermore, although the management set the on-call schedules for the various resident employees, the Isners could arrange to have the schedule switched if they wanted time off.  The Isners kept their own time sheets, and were always paid for time they recorded that was spent responding to any alarms, in accordance with their employment agreement. 

The Isners sued for wages during the hours they spent on call but not responding to any alarms.  The trial court granted summary judgment against the Isners based upon a previous California Court of Appeals decision denying on-call pay to a resident motel clerk for hours he was required to keep the office open but spent in his adjacent apartment performing no work.  Brewer v. Patel, 20 Cal.App.4th 1017 (1993).  The appellate court in that case stated, "An employee such as this is not always working . . . [and] must be compensated only for that time spent carrying out assigned duties, in other words, only for the work the employee actually provides."   In their appeal, the Isners distinguished their own case on the grounds that (1) they had been required to remain within hearing distance of the phone or alarm, and (2) the motel clerk could leave the premises if he gave the owner enough notice that a replacement could be found.

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment.  It found that the motel clerk had been no more able to leave the premises than the Isners, as he had to keep the office open for 16 hours a day and to be available for any of his required duties during that time.  Furthermore, because the Isners could arrange to have the on-call schedule switched among the other resident employees, they were as able to leave the premises with advance notice as the motel clerk in the previous case.  The court concluded, "[E]mployees who are required to reside where they work are entitled to be compensated for time spent performing their assigned duties; they are not entitled to be compensated for time spent simply being available to perform those duties."  Therefore, the Isners were entitled to wages for the time they spent actually responding to calls and alarms, but not "for the time they were able to attend to personal matters while remaining available to respond to emergency calls."

This decision provides employers considerable comfort in establishing on-call systems which only pay employees when they actually perform work.  As in Isner and Brewer, employers should ensure that these systems, where possible, provide employees an opportunity to opt out or trade shifts so as to provide them flexibility.  They should also provide clear, dependable methods for reporting time spent in active work.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Coronavirus and Employee Privacy Laws: What Employers Should Know

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) presents challenging medical privacy issues for employers. Employers must observe their employees’ continued legal right to privacy—including under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), HIPAA, and/or relevant...

Read More
Event

Employment Law Updates for Nonprofits in the New Normal (Webinar)

Join Rebecca Stephens and Jaya Bajaj in the discussion on Employment Law Updates for Nonprofits in the New Normal. Nonprofit organizations are subject to both state and federal employment laws and regulations. The past few...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and the Workplace: Is Your Business Prepared?

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) implicates numerous legal obligations for employers, including leave, medical privacy, and discrimination. Employers should prepare to implement policies that strike a balance between ensuring safety and fostering...

Read More
News

Coronavirus: Can tech allay the dangers of the Bay Area office of the future?

Rebecca Stephens spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle about legal considerations that could potentially hinder a return to physical work as much as technological ones. Link to the article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Coronavirus-Can-tech-allay-the-dangers-of-the-15246378.php

Read More
Publication

Use Caution When Laying off Employees Without a Return to Work Date

Employers who have laid off workers in recent weeks due to the shelter-in-place orders should be aware of little-known requirements regarding final paychecks.  Even if employees are being furloughed with the expectation of returning to...

Read More
Publication

Families First Coronavirus Response Act - Posting Requirement for Employers

The recently enacted Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) requires private employers with fewer than 500 employees to post a notice by April 1 summarizing the benefits available to employees under the FFCRA. For employers...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and the Workplace: Guidance for Employers Resuming Operations

As states and localities begin to relax shelter-in-place requirements and allow businesses to reopen, the coronavirus pandemic presents new challenges for employers. In addition to operational and logistical questions surrounding reopening, employers must navigate...

Read More
Publication

7 Tips for Creating a COVID-19 Essential Business Travel Policy

As states are relaxing COVID-19-related restrictions, employers should remain cautious about business travel. California’s public health orders still limit travel to an “urgent matter” or that which is “essential to your permitted work.” Given...

Read More
Publication

Coronavirus and the Workplace: Key Legal Updates for Employers

With the spread of COVID-19 and the rapidly evolving federal, state, and local government response, it can be difficult for employers to keep up with their rights and obligations. This week, California’s Governor Gavin...

Read More
Publication

Unlimited Vacation Policies Present Potential Pitfalls for California Employers

As unlimited vacation policies increase in popularity, California employers must be careful to avoid legal pitfalls in drafting and implementation. In the first California appellate decision to address unlimited vacation policies, the court held that...

Read More