Updated February 6, 2026
California Labor Laws: Security Guard ‘Break Rights’ You're Missing
California labor laws provide security guards with extensive break rights, yet many employers routinely violate these critical protections. Despite working long shifts in demanding conditions, security professionals often miss out on legally mandated meal and rest periods they're entitled to receive.
Unfortunately, the specifics of these break requirements remain hidden from most security personnel. Many guards incorrectly believe that remaining "on call" during breaks is standard practice, when in fact, the law typically requires completely duty-free break periods. Furthermore, employers frequently misclassify breaks as "on-duty" without meeting the strict legal criteria for this exception.
This article uncovers the complete truth about security guard break rights under California labor laws, from mandatory 30-minute meal periods to required 10-minute rest breaks. We'll examine when on-duty breaks are legally permitted, explore the groundbreaking Augustus v. ABM case that transformed security guard break requirements, and outline exactly what compensation you deserve when your rights are violated.
What California labor laws say about security guard breaks
Security guards working in California are protected by some of the most comprehensive break laws in the nation. These regulations apply to virtually all security personnel regardless of their specific duties or workplace setting.
Meal breaks: 30 minutes after 5 hours
Under California labor laws, security guards must receive a 30-minute meal break when working more than five hours in a day. This first meal period must begin before completing the fifth hour of work. For example, if you start your shift at 9:00 AM, your employer must allow you to begin your meal break by 1:59 PM at the latest.
However, this meal break requirement can be waived if both you and your employer mutually agree to it, but only when your total shift is six hours or less. If you regularly work longer shifts, this waiver option doesn't apply.
Importantly, meal breaks are typically unpaid unless you're required to remain on duty. A proper meal break means being relieved of all work responsibilities for the full 30 minutes. If you're required to stay on the premises during your meal break, your employer must pay you for this time, even if you're not actively working.
Rest breaks: 10 minutes every 4 hours
Additionally, California law mandates paid 10-minute rest breaks for every four hours worked or "major fraction thereof". A major fraction means any time over two hours. For security guards working an 8-hour shift, this translates to two 10-minute rest breaks.
Unlike meal periods, rest breaks must be compensated at your regular pay rate. These breaks should be scheduled as close to the middle of each four-hour work segment as practicable. Security officers who work less than 3.5 hours in a day aren't entitled to rest breaks.
The law specifically states that rest periods are intended to be breaks from all work duties. According to California courts, employers must "relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time" during rest periods.
Second meal break after 10 hours
For security guards working extended shifts, a second 30-minute meal period is required when the workday exceeds 10 hours. This second meal break must begin before you complete your tenth hour of work.
Although this second meal period can be waived through mutual agreement with your employer, specific conditions apply. You can only waive this second meal break if:
- Your total workday doesn't exceed 12 hours
- You took your first meal break as required
- Both you and your employer consent to the waiver
Unlike the first meal period which can be waived if the shift is six hours or less, the second meal period waiver depends on whether you actually took your first meal break, not whether it was waived.
Notably, if your employer fails to provide any required meal period, they must pay you an additional hour at your regular rate of pay for each workday the meal period was not provided. The same premium applies to missed rest breaks.
These specific break requirements form the foundation of security guard labor rights in California, though certain exceptions for on-duty breaks exist under limited circumstances.
When can a break be on-duty and still legal?
While California labor laws generally require employers to provide duty-free breaks, there are limited circumstances where "on-duty" breaks remain perfectly legal. Understanding these exceptions is crucial for security guards whose employers claim they cannot leave their posts during breaks.
Definition of on-duty meal breaks
An on-duty meal break occurs when an employee remains under employer control during their 30-minute meal period. Unlike standard meal breaks, these on-duty periods count as hours worked and must be compensated at the employee's regular pay rate.
On-duty meal breaks represent a narrow exception to California's standard break requirements. Rather than relieving the employee of all work responsibilities, the employer requires the worker to remain available while eating. The California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) interprets this exception strictly, applying an objective standard to determine its legitimacy.
It's worth noting that while employees can agree to on-duty meal breaks under certain conditions, the law was historically silent about on-duty rest breaks until recent legislative changes. This distinction matters particularly for security personnel who might be required to remain vigilant even during designated break times.
Written agreement requirements
For an on-duty meal break to be legally compliant, employers and employees must establish a formal written agreement. This document isn't merely a formality—it provides essential protections while acknowledging the special circumstances that prevent standard breaks.
The written agreement must include several key elements:
- Clear acknowledgment that the nature of work prevents the employee from being relieved of all duties
- Express statement that the employee agrees to an on-the-job paid meal period
- Explicit notification that the employee may revoke the agreement in writing at any time
Without this properly executed agreement, employers cannot legally require security guards to remain on duty during meal breaks—regardless of workplace demands or staffing limitations. Moreover, the agreement must reflect genuine consent rather than coercion.
Employers often overlook these written requirements, assuming verbal agreements suffice. In reality, failure to obtain proper documentation leaves companies vulnerable to significant legal penalties if challenged.
Jobs where on-duty breaks are allowed
The California Labor Commissioner has established a narrow definition of positions that might qualify for on-duty meal breaks. The fundamental test is whether "the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty".
This represents an objective standard—employers cannot simply decide on-duty breaks work better for their business model. Instead, the actual job responsibilities must make duty-free breaks impractical or impossible.
Security guards may qualify for on-duty meal breaks in specific situations, particularly when:
- Stationed alone at remote locations without relief personnel
- Working in positions where continuous security presence is objectively necessary
- Employed as the sole security person on premises during their shift
Other examples that meet this strict standard include sole workers in coffee kiosks or all-night convenience stores. The common thread in these examples is the genuine impossibility of leaving the workplace unattended, not merely employer preference or convenience.
Crucially, employers cannot circumvent break requirements simply by claiming security concerns. If staffing concerns prevent standard breaks, employers should consider hiring multiple security employees to work in shifts, ensuring someone remains on duty while others take proper breaks.
Most importantly, companies cannot legally deny proper breaks to security guards without meeting all criteria for the on-duty exception. Security guards maintain their legal right to pursue wage claims when breaks are improperly denied or classified.
The Augustus v. ABM case: Why on-call breaks are illegal
The landmark Augustus v. ABM Security Services case fundamentally changed how California security companies must handle employee breaks, establishing clear boundaries between rest time and work obligations.
Case background and ruling
In 2012, Jennifer Augustus and fellow security guards filed a class action lawsuit against ABM Security Services. The guards alleged that despite receiving breaks, they were required to keep their pagers and radios on during these periods, remain vigilant, and respond immediately to calls even during their designated rest time.
ABM defended this practice by claiming that the time-sensitive nature of security work justified maintaining on-call status during breaks. The company's policy required guards to respond to emergencies and client needs regardless of their break schedule.
The case traveled through California's court system with varying outcomes. Initially, the trial court granted the guards summary judgment with approximately $90 million in damages, interest, and penalties. The Court of Appeal subsequently reversed this decision, but in December 2016, the California Supreme Court had the final word.
In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court determined that California law prohibits both on-duty and on-call rest periods. Justice Kruger wrote that "during required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time".
What counts as 'employer control'
The court specifically addressed what constitutes employer control during breaks. The justices concluded that requiring employees to remain "at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices" contradicts the fundamental purpose of rest periods.
The court identified several constraints that demonstrated employer control:
- Carrying communication devices (radios, pagers, phones)
- Responding when employers seek contact
- Performing work tasks upon request
- Remaining vigilant to surroundings
These requirements prevented employees from using break time for personal activities such as taking short walks, making personal calls, or briefly leaving the premises.
Impact on security guard policies
The Augustus ruling forced significant changes in security industry practices. Companies needed to completely restructure break policies to comply with the requirement that rest periods be completely free from employer control.
For employers unable to provide duty-free breaks, the court outlined several options:
- Rescheduling interrupted breaks later in the same shift
- Applying for exemptions from state regulators
- Paying the one-hour premium penalty for missed breaks
Subsequently, the security industry lobbied for legislative relief, resulting in Assembly Bill 1512 (2020), which created a narrow exception specifically for security officers. This amendment allows security personnel to remain on call during breaks with certain compensatory requirements, partially abrogating the Augustus decision for the security industry only.
The Augustus case serves as a critical reminder that California labor laws prioritize genuine rest time over employer convenience, establishing that breaks must be truly free from work obligations to serve their intended purpose.
What happens if your employer denies your break rights
Employers who fail to provide proper breaks face serious financial and legal repercussions under California labor laws. Understanding these penalties gives security guards powerful leverage when their rights are violated.
Penalties for employers
Businesses denying break rights must pay more than just missed wages. They face a cascade of financial consequences that grow over time. For each day a break is improperly denied, employers owe the original premium pay plus damages equal to 5% of the underpayment per month until paid.
In addition, employers ordered to pay wages by the Labor Commissioner must pay a non-waivable administrative fee starting at $250, increasing to $500 for orders exceeding $3,000, and reaching $1,000 for orders of $10,000 or more.
Businesses failing to timely comply with Labor Commissioner orders face yet another penalty: 20% of the underpayment payable to the Labor Commissioner, coupled with 1% per day of underpayment payable to the employee for each day payment is delayed.
Extra pay for missed breaks
Security guards denied proper breaks are entitled to "premium pay" – one additional hour at their regular rate for each workday a meal period wasn't provided, and another hour for each workday rest breaks were denied. This means potentially two extra hours of pay daily.
Importantly, these premium payments are classified as "wages," not penalties. Consequently, they must appear on wage statements and be paid within statutory deadlines when employment ends.
The premium pay accrues separately for each type of break violation. For example, a security guard denied both meal and rest breaks on the same day would be owed two additional hours of pay.
Wage theft and legal consequences
Denying legally required breaks constitutes wage theft under California law. This classification empowers security guards to take legal action beyond just individual claims.
Employees can sue employers in court or even file class actions representing all affected workers. ABM Security Services learned this lesson painfully when security guards won a $90 million judgment over unpaid break time, and Wackenhut Security faced a $130 million settlement in a similar case.
Company officers and agents who knowingly permit break violations can be held personally liable for unpaid wages and penalties, ensuring accountability extends beyond just the corporate entity.
How to protect your rights as a security guard
Protecting your rights starts with documenting everything. Many security guards lose valid claims simply because they lack proper records or don't understand how to navigate the complaint process.
Track your breaks and hours
Maintaining detailed records serves as your best defense against wage theft. Track all hours worked by writing down exactly when you begin and end each shift. Document every meal period, rest break, and any interruptions that occur during these times. Noting whether interruptions were voluntary or involuntary is especially crucial. This documentation becomes vital evidence if disputes arise regarding your break periods.
Understand your employment agreement
Carefully review any written agreements about on-duty breaks. Remember that on-duty meal breaks require explicit written consent acknowledging you can revoke this arrangement anytime. Be wary if your employer labels you a "security manager" or similarly important-sounding title to justify denying breaks or avoiding overtime pay.
How to file a claim with the Labor Commissioner
If your employer violates your break rights, file a wage claim with California's Labor Commissioner within three years of the violation. Name all responsible parties, including building owners or property managers where you worked as they may share liability for unpaid wages. Identify every location where you performed security duties.
When to consult a labor attorney
Seek legal help immediately whenever workplace issues involve persistent break violations. An attorney can help determine the best course of action and begin building your case early. Many offer free initial consultations with no obligation. Remember that every hour worked without proper breaks potentially represents additional compensation owed to you.
Conclusion
California labor laws clearly protect security guards with specific break requirements, though many employers routinely ignore these rights. Throughout this article, we've examined how security professionals deserve duty-free meal periods and rest breaks, regardless of workplace demands.
Security guards must receive 30-minute meal breaks after five hours of work and 10-minute paid rest breaks for every four hours worked. Additionally, a second meal period becomes mandatory when shifts exceed 10 hours. Despite these clear requirements, employers often incorrectly classify breaks as "on-duty" without meeting strict legal criteria.
The landmark Augustus v. ABM case fundamentally changed the legal landscape for security guards, establishing that employees cannot be required to remain "on-call" during breaks. This ruling affirmed that rest periods must be completely duty-free, preventing employers from maintaining control over how guards spend their break time.
Employers who deny these rights face significant financial consequences, including premium pay penalties and potential class action lawsuits. Security guards denied proper breaks can receive up to two additional hours of pay each day these violations occur.
Above all, knowledge remains your strongest defense against exploitation. By tracking your hours, understanding your employment agreement, and knowing when to file claims with the Labor Commissioner, you protect yourself from wage theft. Security work inherently involves protecting others – but you deserve protection too. Your break rights aren't optional extras but essential protections guaranteed under California law.
The security industry thrives because dedicated professionals maintain vigilance during their shifts. Still, every guard deserves genuine rest periods free from work obligations. When employers respect these fundamental rights, both security personnel and the public they protect ultimately benefit.
References
[1] – https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_mealperiods.htm
[2] – https://bluestone.law/california-meal-break-law/
[6] – https://calchamberalert.com/2023/01/27/meal-breaks-generally-depend-on-actual-number-of-hours-worked/
[7] – https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_MealPeriods.html
