Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—WORKING TIME—E.D. Cal.: Employer granted summary against employee’s on-call and meal and rest period claims, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

There was no written policy stating that the employee had to be ready to answer the phone or work during his meal breaks.

An employer was granted a motion for summary judgment against an employee’s claims that it failed to pay overtime wages that derived from the time he spent on-call, and failed to provide meal and rest breaks, by a federal district court in California. With respect to on-call time, the court observed that the employee could still engage in various activities and no one specifically instructed him that he could not run errands or go out to dinner while on-call. As to meal and rest breaks, there was no dispute that the employer satisfied its statutory obligation to provide the employee “a reasonable opportunity to take” meal and rest breaks (Jones v. Cardinal Health 414, LLC, 2:23-cv-2050-JDP (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2026)).

The employee worked as a nuclear pharmacist for the employer from approximately January 2019 through May 2021. He was paid on an hourly basis and was paid overtime. His schedule, including whether he was on-call, was typically communicated a month prior to his shift.

On-call duty. The employee’s weekday on-call duty was generally 6:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. His weekend shift duty consisted of working a regular shift from midnight to noon and then being on-call from noon to midnight. While on-call, the employee carried a company cell phone that customers could call when they needed immediate assistance. When the employee received a customer call while on-call, he would go to the pharmacy, clock in, prepare the dose, package it, provide it to the delivery driver, clock out, and go home. He spent approximately 18 to 22 minutes at the pharmacy to handle each request. When he was required to go to the pharmacy while on-call, the employer paid him wages for at least two hours and a separate pager fee for being on-call.

While the employee was on-call, he could still engage in various activities, such as reading, watching movies, doing yard work, putting at a golf course, walking, eating meals, sleeping, and spending time with his adult son. No one specifically instructed him that he could not run errands or go out to dinner while on-call. According to the employee he was not called approximately 60 percent of the weekdays that he was on-call.

Meal and rest break guidelines. During his employment, the employee received and signed the employer’s meal and rest break guidelines, which provided that employees were “required to take a minimum 30-minute uninterrupted meal break within the first five hours” of their shift and were “required to take a second 30-minute uninterrupted meal break before the end of” the 10th hour of any shift.

The employee usually would eat lunch at his desk so he could “work if needed.” He was never told that he could not leave the pharmacy during his meal breaks. Moreover, there was no written policy stating that the employee had to be ready to answer the phone or work during his meal breaks.

The employer’s meal and rest break guidelines also provided that the employee was entitled to two rest breaks during an eight-hour shift. No one ever told him not to take a rest break. Instead, the employee claimed that his rest breaks were interrupted for the same reason as his meal breaks: he subjectively believed that he could be called to work at any minute.

The employee initiated this action in February 2023 in state court. After removing the action to federal court, the employer moved for summary judgment as to all claims.

Wage claims. The employee maintained six causes of action based on state law: (1) willful failure to pay wages; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime and provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code § 510; (4) failure to pay overtime and provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code § 226.7; (5) unfair business practices; and (6) constructive termination.

On-call hours. The employee’s failure to pay wages claim centered on the employer’s alleged failure to pay overtime wages, which the employee alleged derived from his on-call hours.

“[T]he question of whether on-call time is compensable turns on the extent of the employer’s control over the employee during non-work time.” The California Supreme Court has held that, to determine whether on-call time is compensable, courts should consider the following factors: “(1) whether there was an on-premises living requirement; (2) whether there were excessive geographical restrictions on employee’s movements; (3) whether the frequency of calls was unduly restrictive; (4) whether a fixed time limit for response was unduly restrictive; (5) whether the on-call employee could easily trade on-call responsibilities; (6) whether use of a pager could ease restrictions; and (7) whether the employee had actually engaged in personal activities during call-in time.”

There was no evidence or allegation that the employee was required to live on the employer’s work premises. This factor weighed in favor of finding on-call time non-compensable. Second, the factor regarding a required response time also weighed in favor of finding on-call time non-compensable. Third, the frequency of calls was not unduly restrictive such that the employee can succeed on this claim. Fourth, there was no evidence that there was a fixed time limit for response. Fifth, the employee could trade on-call shifts with other pharmacists. Sixth, the employee was provided a company cell phone that allowed him freedom of movement. This factor weighed in favor of finding on-call time non-compensable. Lastly, the employee actually engaged in personal activities during on-call time.

In sum, the factors supported finding that the employee’s on-call time was non-compensable. The frequency of calls was the only factor that did not squarely weigh in favor of this finding, and the Court of Appeals has held that this factor alone does not support a finding of compensability. Accordingly, the employer was entitled to judgment as to the employee’s claim for willful failure to pay wages.

Meal and rest breaks. The employee also asserted a claim for failure to pay overtime and to provide meal and rest breaks. Because the employee had not established that the employer failed to pay him overtime wages, the court’s analysis focused on the alleged failure to provide meal and rest breaks.

Meals breaks. Labor Code section 512 states that an employer shall not “employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes” or “employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes....” The California Supreme Court, in Brinker Restaurant Corp v. Superior Court of San Diego County, held that “[t]he employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so.”

Here, the employee was made aware of the employer’s meal break guidelines. In addition to providing meal breaks, the guidelines provided that if the employee did not receive either of his meal breaks, he was to notify either his supervisor or timekeeper. Moreover, the employee had no documentation that he was not allowed to take a meal break, and nobody instructed him not to take a meal break.

Consequently, there was no dispute that the employer satisfied its statutory obligation by providing the employee “a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break” for meals.

Rest breaks. Labor Code section 226.7 provides that employers must provide rest breaks as mandated by relevant statute or regulation. The employer’s guidelines also provided that the employee was entitled to two rest breaks during an 8-hour shift. The employee acknowledged that no one told him not to take a rest break. Instead, he claimed that his rest breaks were interrupted because he subjectively believed that he could be called to work at any minute, despite no policy or supervisor stating such an expectation.

Thus, there was no dispute that the employer satisfied its statutory obligation by providing plaintiff “a reasonable opportunity to take” rest breaks.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-2050-JDP.

Judge: Peterson, J.

Attorneys: Stephen L. Ramazzini (Stephen L. Ramazzini, Attorney at Law) for Mason M. Jones. Benjamin J. Schnayerson (Jackson Lewis) for Cardinal Health 414, LLC.

Companies: Cardinal Health 414, LLC

Cases: WageHour WorkingTime Overtime StateLawClaims CaliforniaNews