California - A California federal judge granted class certification Wednesday in a suit accusing AlliedBarton Security Services LP of breaking California state laws by not providing off-duty meal breaks to thousands of security officers, finding enough commonality among the proposed class members. U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton certified one class and three subclasses consisting of thousands of security officers employed by AlliedBarton between Dec. 21, 2008, and the present, pointing to the Ninth Circuits recent finding in Muhammed Abdullah et al. v. U.S. Security Associates Inc. that a similar defendants decision to staff only one guard at each post resulted in forced on-duty meals for workers. Lead plaintiff and ex-AlliedBarton employee Gregory Dynabursky argues that the defendant violated the California labor code, and the states business and professions code by requiring guards to perform work duties during their meal breaks. He also alleges that the workers had to sign a related on-duty meal period agreement. AlliedBarton countered that the nature of the security guards work varied widely from worksite to worksite, post to post and shift to shift, thus certification couldnt be granted. But U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton disagreed, saying that -- similar to the U.S. Security Associates workers -- the duties of [AlliedBartons] security officers likewise vary, but [AlliedBarton] does not convincingly demonstrate how any of them would necessarily prevent a security officer from taking an off-duty meal break. California law mandates that for every five hours of work, employees be allowed a 30-minute meal break in which they are relieved of all work, unless the nature of the work prevents such breaks and there is a written agreement between the parties. Judge Staton had ordered supplemental briefing on class certification in light of the Ninth Circuits September decision in Abdullah, which found sufficient commonality to certify a class of security guards forced to take their meals while on duty. Similar to U.S. Security Associates, AlliedBarton had enough employees to provide relief to workers entitled to off-duty meal breaks based on the nature of its operations, Judge Staton said Wednesday. He determined that the alleged variations among the security officers job duties didnt defeat certification because the defendant hadnt convincingly shown how any of the security officers duties would prevent them from taking an off-duty meal break. Dynabursky alleges that AlliedBartons policy banning sleeping or dozing while on meal or rest breaks violates California state laws, while the defendant claimed that no such prohibition was uniformly or consistently applied to the workers. Judge Staton again sided with the plaintiff on that claim, however he denied a second theory in which Dynabursky argued that workers had to keep communication devices on them during rest breaks and were subject to call backs. The judge found that the plaintiff had only perhaps provided site-specific, but not classwide, proof. Larry W. Lee of Diversity Law Group A PC said on Friday that they look forward to pursuing the case on its merits going forward. We obviously believe that the judge made the correct decision, particularly in light of the Ninth Circuits and California Court of Appeals recent rulings on similar issues, he said. Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. The plaintiffs are represented by Larry Lee of Diversity Law Group APC, Dennis S. Hyun of Hyun Legal APC, and Edward W. Choi and Paul M. Yi of Law Offices of Choi & Associates PC. The defendants are represented by Jeremy T. Naftel and Dawn M. Irizarry of Carothers Disante & Freudenberger LLP. The case is Dynabursky et al. v. AlliedBarton Security Services LP et al., case number 8:12-cv-02210, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Posted on: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:15:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015