California Court Ushers in Sweeping Changes for Scheduling Policies
A California Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in Ward v. Tilly's, instituting a sweeping change in California's reporting-time pay rules and now prohibiting a common scheduling practice used by employers throughout the state.
February 20, 2019 at 11:20 AM
5 minute read
Aaron D. Langberg, Anthony Guzman and Shaun J. Voigt of Fisher Phillips. (Photo: Courtesy Photo)
A California Court of Appeal recently issued its decision in Ward v. Tilly's, instituting a sweeping change in California's reporting-time pay rules and now prohibiting a common scheduling practice used by employers throughout the state. Following the Feb. 4 decision, California employers who require employees to call in two hours before a shift to determine whether or not they are needed, and report to work if called in, are now obligated to pay that employee, at a minimum, for two hours of work even if the employee is informed that there is no need to come in to work that day. As a result of this decision, employers should be careful to craft scheduling policies that avoid the same pitfalls seen in this case.
Background and Decision
Under Tilly's scheduling policy, Skylar Ward was required to call in approximately two hours before the start of her shift to determine whether she needed to come to work. If Tilly's told her to report to work, she was required to do so and would be paid for that shift as normal. However, if Tilly's informed her that there was no need to come in, Ward would receive no compensation—after all, according to Tilly's, all she did was make a single call and never actually reported to the worksite.
Nevertheless, in a precedent-setting ruling, the court held that, under the facts of this case, merely calling in for mandatory on-call shifts constitutes “reporting to work,” which entitled Ward and her coworkers to a minimum of two hours of reporting-time pay under the applicable wage order.
Prior to the case, various courts had disagreed about what it truly meant to “report to work,” with many courts—not to mention employers—understandably believing that this required the employee to physically report to the work location to be eligible for reporting-time pay. According to the court, however, modern technology has advanced to the point where “reporting” could mean far more than just physical presence at the worksite.
Court's Reasoning, Explained
In short, the court ultimately reasoned that even having to place a telephone call as part of a mandatory on-call schedule fell within the ambit of this “reporting” rule for two main reasons. First, requiring reporting-time pay would “require employers to internalize some of the costs of over-scheduling, thus encouraging employers to accurately project their labor needs and to schedule accordingly.” Second, it would also compensate employees for the “inconvenience and expense associated with making themselves available to work on-call shifts, including forgoing other employment, hiring caregivers for children or elders, and traveling to a worksite.” In relying on these public policy considerations, the court aligned itself with prior California cases that tended to tie the compensability of worktime to the degree of employer control over an employee's activities.
Notwithstanding its 33-page analysis, the court in Ward v. Tilly's left several key questions unanswered. Most notably, the court failed to address the issue of whether its holding would apply retroactively—potentially exposing countless employers across the state that utilize similar on-call scheduling policies to staggering class action liability. The court also neglected to address the inherent line-drawing problem contained within its decision; that is, how long before a shift could an employee call in and still have it constitute compensable reporting? If not two hours, then how long?
What Should Employers Do Now?
Employers should be careful to avoid the pitfalls of the Tilly's scheduling policy. In its decision, the court identified several distinguishing features of the Tilly's scheduling policy that led to its downfall, including: requiring the employees to call the employer; independently disciplining employees for late or missed call-ins; and making call-in and reporting mandatory. To mitigate against these pitfalls, employers should craft alternative scheduling policies, using the following guidelines:
- Call the employee, do not require them to call in. Create a call list of employees who might be available prior to the upcoming shift. Managers can then make their way through the list to meet scheduling needs. This practice has been approved by various courts in related “on-call” contexts.
- Don't discipline employees for failing to respond to your call to check for availability. Without a fear of discipline, it would be much more difficult for the employee to argue that the policy truly constrained the employee's freedom and activity.
- Don't make reporting mandatory. If an employee answers and doesn't wish to report to work, simply move on to the next person on the list. This practice has also been approved by various courts in related “on-call” contexts.
Even with these guidelines, however, no policy is a sure thing, and even minor changes could affect the way a court may view it—meaning that some employers may wish to abandon such practices altogether. Nevertheless, there is hope. Unlike most decisions coming out of the Court of Appeal, Ward v. Tilly's is one of the rare cases that comes with a robust dissenting opinion that condemns the new rule and cautions against retroactivity. To that end, employers should keep up-to-date on whether a subsequent appeal is filed and whether the California Supreme Court ultimately decides to take another look at this sweeping change in the near future.
Shaun J. Voigt is a partner with Fisher Phillips in Los Angeles. He may be reached at [email protected].
Aaron D. Langberg is an associate with the firm in San Francisco. He may be reached at [email protected].
Anthony Guzman is an associate with the firm in San Francisco. He may be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Hogan Lovells, Jenner & Block Challenge Trump EOs Impacting Gender-Affirming Care Hogan Lovells, Jenner & Block Challenge Trump EOs Impacting Gender-Affirming Care](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/06/The-White-House-Building-2-767x633.jpg)
Hogan Lovells, Jenner & Block Challenge Trump EOs Impacting Gender-Affirming Care
3 minute read![Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/03/Apple-computer-sign-767x633.jpg)
Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute read![Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2023/10/US-Department-of-Justice-Building-2022-006-767x633-5.jpg)
![Hawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement Hawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/therecorder/contrib/content/uploads/sites/414/2023/08/401161841.jpg)
Hawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250