Font size: bigger | smaller

Should I Be Paid for Standby Time? (California Law)

This guide is for information only and is not legal advice. Legal advice must be tailored to specific facts. This guide is based on general legal principles and does not address all possible claims, exceptions or conditions related to the subject matter discussed.

by Marilynn Mika Spencer

Whether an employer must pay an employee for standby time depends on whether the time is “controlled standby" or “uncontrolled standby." In simple terms, this means that if the employee cannot use his or her time for personal reasons, the time is controlled and considered time worked. However, as with most areas of the law, applying the rule to each situation requires analysis.

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) publishes an Enforcement Manual. The Manual explains controlled standby as follows: “If the employee’s time is so restricted that [he or she] cannot pursue personal activities and come and go as he [or she] pleases, the employer is considered to have direction and control of the employee." If the employer has direction and control, the time is compensable work time.

The DLSE uses the two-part test in the California Supreme Court case of Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera, 36 Cal.3d 403(1984) to decide whether standby time is compensable. Part One measures whether the restrictions on the employee are primarily directed toward fulfilling the employer’s requirements and policies. Part Two asks whether the employee is substantially restricted to the point where he or she cannot attend to private pursuits. It is this second part that requires the most analysis. The courts will review the overall effect of the employer’s restrictions on the employee, not whether the employee is restricted at one particular slice of time.

California law looks at the same factors as in the federal case of Berry v. County of Sonoma, 30 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir.1994), including:

  • whether there are excessive geographical restrictions on employees’ movements;
  • whether the frequency of calls [to work or return to work] is unduly restrictive;– whether a required response time is unduly restrictive;
  • whether the on-call employee can easily trade his or her on-call responsibilities with another employee; and
  • whether the extent of personal activities engaged in during on-call time.

DLSE Opinion Letter 1998.12.28.

Another way of describing this is to consider if the employee was “engaged to wait" or “waited to be engaged." Did the employer hire the employee for the purpose (or partial purpose) of waiting to work? Or is the employee waiting for the opportunity to work? This is highly dependent on the specific facts. Owens v. Local No. 169, Ass'n of W. Pulp and Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347, 354 (9th Cir.1992)

Contact Us

Spencer Johnson McCammon LLP
2727 Camino del Rio South
Suite 140
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 233-1313

Spencer Johnson McCammon Weekly

Spencer Johnson McCammon Weekly

Topic of the Week

Right-to-Work Laws

Right to work laws apply to all public-sector unions (both state and federal) and have also been enacted in 28 states. In the public-sector union context, right-to-work laws mean that union members do not have to pay union dues to be members of the union.

Read more...

Blog of the Week

Thought for the Week

"Living expenses increase, gas prices increase, food expenses increase, everything is getting more expensive in order to live in San Francisco. We have to drive more and more, deal with health and stress problems, but Uber doesn't care."

–Uber organizer Mostafa Maklad on the Uber and Lyft drivers' strike

List of the Week

from Workplace Fairness

Top Searches in Health & Safety this week: 

  • Smoking rights in the workplace
  • Workers compensation: What to do 
  • Workplace health and safety protections
  • Infectious diseases in the workplace

 

Top Five News Headlines

  1. Labor Challenges Are Major Theme of 2019 NRA Show
  2. Controversial Settlement Divides New York Nurses
  3. Kaydon Corporation to Pay $38,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit
  4. McDonald's workers say restaurants are a magnet for crime
  5. Pro-Con: Is the Paycheck Fairness Act a boon for American women?