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

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Sexual orientation discrimination can affect your job status, your working environment, your health benefits, and a host of other issues in the workplace. The law in this area is changing rapidly for the better. If you feel you might have been discriminat

Read more...

Blog of the Week

Why temporary layoffs may become permanent

Forty-two percent, or 11.6 million, of all jobs lost through April 25 due to Covid-19 will become permanent, according to the University of Chicago.

Thought for the Week

"We know LGBTQ people face higher rates of economic instability, higher poverty, lower rates of employment and higher incidence of pre-existing conditions. You can make a pretty reliable assumption that LGBTQ people are facing serious economic consequences from the pandemic. The idea that LGBTQ people could be more vulnerable simply because of who they are is unacceptable. It was already imperative that we enact these protections, and this crisis has laid bare how critical it is."

–harita Gruberg, director of policy at the Center for American Progress

List of the Week

from The National LGBTQ Advocacy Group Human Rights Campaign and PSB Research

  • 17% of LGBTQ people had lost their jobs because of COVID-19, compared to 13% of the general population
  • 1 in 3 LGBTQ respondents had their work hours reduced, compared to about 1 in 5 in the general population
  • 11% of LGBTQ respondents reported requesting rent delays, compared to 8% of the general population
  • 29% of LGBTQ respondents reported having access to paid medical leave if they or a family member were to get sick

Top Five News Headlines

  1. Amazon’s heavily automated HR leaves workers in sick-leave limbo
  2. Democrats say DOL keeping workers in the dark about paid leave
  3. Surprise unemployment drop sparks debate over how fast the economy will rally
  4. Don’t Let Your Partner’s Work Stress Become Your Own
  5. How to Address Unintentional and Unconscious Bias at Work