"On-Call" Scheduling is "Unfair" Scheduling

June 3, 2021
A man and a woman are wearing masks in an operating room.

Whether it’s called standby, on-call, surprise, or predictive scheduling, there’s one thing for certain: it doesn’t matter what it’s called—it’s an unfair employment practice for hourly workers and one that courts across the country have found problematic if not illegal. 


Let’s be clear: this overbearing practice negatively affects hourly employees in the retail and food service industries. In other professions (including healthcare, legal, etc.) it’s a perfectly acceptable employment practice — and in many cases a necessary public service. But outside of these examples, on-call scheduling is overly restrictive and demonstrably unnecessary. A surgeon or IT specialist on call? Of course—but there is nothing inherent in an industry that would require a cashier or fry cook to be “on call.” 


This one-sided practice also limits the worker from securing other valuable employment opportunities — especially in a California where the cost of living is very high. In fact, employers who engage in these practices can face severe penalties and expose themselves to lawsuits.

WHAT IS “ON-CALL” SCHEDULING?

On-call shifts are those in which workers are notified and/or required to call in the night before — sometimes just an hour or two prior to starting — to find out if they’re actually working their scheduled hours. Regarding unfair scheduling practices, the nonpartisan and nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (“EPI”) reports that, “Schedules are provided — and frequently changed — with little to no advance notice, sometimes requiring employees to remain ‘on call’ to come to work at the drop of a hat.”


HARSH CHALLENGES FOR HOURLY WORKERS

On-call scheduling has become commonplace and creates harsh challenges for hourly workers. When an employee is required to remain “on call,” EPI emphasizes that this creates an environment in which the employee is unfairly compelled and pressured to maintain “open availability” for the entire time the business is open, “giving them little input into the days and times they will work.” As a result, these one-sided and opportunistic employment policies create financial hardships as well as unreasonable obstacles for hourly workers. “Not only do fluctuating schedules wreak havoc with tight household budgets,” writes Peter Szekely for Reuters, “they make it difficult to make appointments, arrange child care and plan family time, workers point out.” EPI confirms that, “Volatile hours not only mean volatile incomes, but add to the strain working families face.” They stress the difficulty individuals have in holding down a second job or pursuing other career opportunities. More than difficult, many parents find it next to impossible to secure reliable and safe childcare. EPI concluded that erratic work schedules “result in a host of serious problems for working people and their families.”


NEW BOSS SAME AS THE OLD BOSS

These practices are not new. Employers began engaging in on-call scheduling nearly fifty years ago. University of Chicago Associate Professor Susan Lambert points out that, “Variable scheduling began cropping up in the 1970s as companies sought to maximize profits to better attract investors.” Lambert stresses that businesses zero in on slashing their labor budgets, which “puts enormous pressure on managers to really keep close track of how many hours you’re using and how sales are going.”


Flash-forward to right now. With advanced technology many companies have the ability “to track sales and customer flows with precise detail,” according to EPI. This allows employers to “use algorithms to automatically set workers’ schedules based on predicted customer traffic, often on an hourly basis.” Almost fifty years later, this scheduling practice has evolved into a grossly biased reality for many current workers.


CALIFORNIA SHIFT WORKERS ARE PROTECTED

Good news for California residents: the courts have upheld some of the strongest employee protections in the country as evidenced by the landmark case Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. In this seminal case, Tillys, the retail clothing chain, required their hourly workers to check in two hours prior to their on-call shift to see if they were working. Tillys did not pay their employees for their on-call time (as well as their shift) if they didn’t have to work. One of their employees, Skyler Ward, decided to challenge this practice in court, based on the state’s Wage Order 7, which stipulates that employers must pay their nonexempt retail employees for reporting to work (including by phone) if one of these following guidelines are true:

  • An employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half of their usual or scheduled day’s work
  • An employee is required to report for work a second time in any one workday and is furnished less than two hours of work on the second reporting (for example: a regular shift and an on-call shift)


The California Court of Appeal found that under Wage Order 7, Tillys owed Ms. Ward reporting time pay while she was “on-call.” In finding in favor of Ms. Ward, the Court of Appeal wrote “that on-call shifts burdened employees, who cannot take other jobs, go to school, or make social plans during on-call shifts — but who nonetheless received no compensation from Tilly’s unless they ultimately are called in to work.” The court made it clear that the Wage Order’s protection of “reporting time” compensation was designed to prevent the exact type of exploitation of employees that Tillys — and other employers — were engaged in. To remain compliant with California’s wage laws, employers have two choices: ensure their scheduling systems are compliant with both the letter and spirit of the court’s ruling in Ward, or pay workers for their on-call shifts when the employee calls in or reports.

COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND “ON-CALL” SCHEDULING

The economic devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic knocked business owners back on their heels, especially in hard hit states like California. According to the Society of Human Resource Management, many frontline industries were desperate to implement cost-cutting measures that forced them to “shut down or drastically alter employees’ schedules.”  This resulted with employers aggressively changing their static scheduling to more on-call and shift programs. But regardless of COVID, employment laws remain intact, including California’s comprehensive statutes protecting employee rights. There’s no disputing that employers have encountered severe economic challenges during the pandemic; however, it was not a license to disregard the laws and guidelines implemented to guarantee workers full compensation for all hours dedicated to their employer.


You’re legally entitled to stable and predictable work hours. Individuals working on-call should be paid accordingly. Lawyers for Employee & Consumer Rights can assist in making that happen.


Call us today to talk about your "on-call" scheduling and see if your employee rights were violated, the Lawyers for Employee and Consumer Rights can help.


Share on Social Media

July 6, 2026
What Qualifies as Workplace Harassment in California? Workplace harassment generally involves unwelcome conduct based on a legally protected characteristic that is severe enough or pervasive enough to create a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment. Not every rude comment, personality conflict, or difficult supervisor violates California law. However, when harassment is based on characteristics such as sex, race, disability, religion, age, or another protected status, employees may have important legal rights.  Many employees wonder whether what they are experiencing is simply an unpleasant work environment or something that may violate California law. The answer depends on the specific facts, including what happened, why it happened, how often it occurred, and whether it was connected to a protected characteristic. Understanding what qualifies as workplace harassment is the first step toward protecting your rights. In this guide, we'll explain what workplace harassment is under California law, review common real-world examples, and discuss what employees can do if they believe they have been subjected to unlawful harassment. If any of these situations sound familiar, our office is always available to answer your questions and help you better understand your legal options.
June 30, 2026
Can My Employer Legally Monitor My Emails, Text Messages, or Personal Phone? Sometimes, but not always. California employers generally have broad authority to monitor communications and activity on company-owned devices, email accounts, and computer systems. However, that does not mean they can freely access your personal phone, private email account, text messages, or other personal information whenever they choose. Whether the monitoring is lawful often depends on who owns the device, what company policies are in place, whether you gave consent, and the specific facts surrounding the situation. Many employees assume they have no privacy rights once they walk into work. Others believe their personal devices and accounts are always protected, even when they use them for work-related purposes. The reality falls somewhere in between, and California provides employees with stronger workplace privacy protections than many other states. If you believe your employer may have crossed the line, understanding where those legal boundaries exist is an important first step. Below are some of the most common questions employees ask about workplace monitoring, what employers can legally access, and when it may be appropriate to speak with a California employment attorney. If your situation is not covered here, our office is always available to answer your questions.
June 23, 2026
Can You Be Wrongfully Terminated in California? Yes. Although California is an at-will employment state, employers cannot fire employees for illegal reasons. If your termination was motivated by discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower activity, protected medical leave, or another violation of state or federal law, you may have been wrongfully terminated. Many employees assume they have no legal rights simply because their employer said they were "letting them go" or gave a reason that seemed legitimate. In reality, employers rarely admit they terminated someone for an unlawful reason. Instead, they may point to poor performance, restructuring, attendance, or another business justification. Looking at the entire sequence of events—not just the explanation you were given—is often what matters most.  If you're wondering whether your firing crossed the line from unfair to illegal, there are several warning signs to watch for. Below are seven of the most common situations that may indicate you were wrongfully terminated in California. If any of these sound familiar, our office is always available to answer your questions and help you better understand your legal rights.
More Posts