Being an armored car driver is no doubt an extremely stressful job. You're driving around in a truck full of money, for heaven's sake. There's a reason why caper movies so often feature armored truck robbery scenes.

So I get that for the drivers, a 30-minute mid-day break would be nice—a chance to unwind, eat a sandwich, maybe even catch a little cat nap.

Except then there's an unattended truck full of money. It's kind of a problem.

On Tuesday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge rebuffed a would-be class action by armored car drivers who complained that they don't get a 30-minute (unpaid) off-duty break for a meal.

It's a nice win for security services company Garda and its legal team led by Malcolm Heinicke from Munger, Tolles & Olson, plus Keith Jacoby and Robert Blumberg from Littler Mendelson, even if it feels like a no-duh kind of decision. (The judge in a separate ruling also tossed overtime claims.)

California law requires employers to give employees either an unpaid half-hour off-duty for a meal, or else a paid half-hour while on duty, if the nature of the work prevents taking a break. (Or, if you're like me, you just eat at your desk all day long.)

The armored car drivers get the on-duty, paid-half hour.

It's not as if the plaintiffs don't understand why. As one driver admitted, he “couldn't clock out and go away from the truck and leave the money on the truck.”

While in uniform, the driver said he has to be constantly vigilant whenever he leaves the vehicle. Even if he just “went into, say, McDonalds to get a Coke,” he said that he has to be on alert so no one could use him as “a hostage to try to get into the truck.”

Gulp.

Still, the plaintiffs offered several suggestions how they could get a real break, like maybe if there were three guards per truck instead of two?

But Judge William Highberger (who was a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher before he became judge in 1998) pretty much annihilated that idea.

“If each member of a three-person team was dropped off while the others continued the route (eventually looping back to pick him up), that [driver] would be a particularly prone target who would need to remain alert, especially since he would have no partner monitoring him and even minimal casing would lead thieves to know that the armored vehicle would come back in 30 minutes to retrieve him,” he wrote.

Plus, it would wreak havoc with the routes.

Aside from the whole thing being a bad idea, the judge also noted that “California law does not require employers to restructure their basic operations to permit off-duty meal periods.”

Um, well, what if the drivers changed or covered up their uniforms when they went on break?

“[T]hieves surveilling the armored vehicle are not likely to be fooled into thinking that a plaintiff exiting the vehicle is not a departing [driver] simply because he is trying to cover his uniform,” Highberger wrote. “Moreover, there is no disguising an armored vehicle.”

The plaintiffs also suggested they could get their off-duty breaks by parking their armored vehicles in police station parking lots or other safe spots.

So yeah, a few problems there too.

The plaintiffs “offer no evidence to suggest police forces of other third parties would be willing to host a crime target on their premises while those charged with protecting that target went on a break.”

Oh. Well, when you put that way…

Moreover, Highberger noted, “Any time the armored vehicle is parked, the risk of armed attack increases, and this risk would increase even more if the vehicle was parked for a full 30 minutes as part of its scheduled route.”

I'm feeling like if he wasn't a judge, Highberger could have an alternate career as a security consultant. He seems to have a better handle on all this than the drivers do.

Let's just say the next time I have some gold bullion to move, I'm calling him for a game plan.  

---

We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from Litigation Daily, the exclusive source for sharp commentary on mega court battles, winning strategies and the issues that obsess elite litigators. Click here to subscribe.