I posted about Augustus v. ABM here. The California Supreme Court has granted review of the case. That means this published decision no longer is citable, unfortunately. It also means that the Supreme Court will decide what a "rest period" means. Must the employer relieve the employee of all duty, as the plaintiff argued? Or is it enough to be refraining from work, but subject to be called back to work if needed? Or something else? We will keep you posted.
This could be the "Brinker" of rest period cases. Here's hoping we don't have to wait as long as we did for Brinker!