California Labor &
Employment Law Blog

California Supreme Court Deals Blow to Employers on Issue of De Minimis Time
Jul. 26 2018

California Supreme Court Deals Blow to Employers on Issue of De Minimis Time

Topics: Court Decisions, New Laws & Legislation, Wage & Hour Issues

Today, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Troester v. Starbucks, refusing to hold that the well-established de minimis doctrine applies under California law. The de minimis doctrine is a principle of law that has long been endorsed and applied by both federal and California state courts (as well as California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement), holding that employers need not compensate employees for insignificant amounts of time spent performing work-related tasks off the clock where such time is administratively difficult to track. Today, the state’s high court held that, although the doctrine is widely accepted under the federal FLSA, California wage orders are more protective of employees and require payment for “all hours worked.”  The Court held that the de minimis doctrine cannot be used to allow an employer to avoid paying for tasks that take, on average, 4-10 minutes at the end of an employee’s shift. However, the Court stated that is was not prepared to hold that the doctrine could never be applied under California law on potentially different facts involving smaller amounts of time spent off the clock and/or only sporadically. 

Background
Troester was a shift supervisor for Starbucks who filed a class action lawsuit in California state court alleging that the coffee giant failed to compensate him and other employees for closing tasks (e.g. locking the door, setting the alarm) they performed after clocking out at the end of their shifts.  Starbucks removed the case to federal court and then moved for summary judgment, arguing that Troester’s claims had no merit because an employer is not required by law to pay employees for de minimis time associated with tasks that as a matter of practicality are performed after the employee has clocked out (such as locking the door or shutting down a computer).

The federal district court agreed with Starbucks and granted its motion for judgment. Troester appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which, in turn, certified the issue to the California Supreme Court to provide guidance on whether the de minimis doctrine applies for purposes of claims for unpaid wages brought under California law (as opposed to wage claims brought under federal law, the FLSA).

The Supreme Court’s Decision
Today, the California Supreme Court issued the requested guidance, rejecting application of the de minimis doctrine on the facts of the Starbucks case. The Court held that nothing in the text or legislative history of the wage orders or Labor Code suggested any legislative intent to allow employers to avoid paying for de minimis amounts of time spent on work tasks. The Court explained that on the facts of the case before it, it was undisputed that Troester spent an average of 4-10 minutes on closing tasks after he had clocked out. The Court also noted that over his entire period of employment, this was the equivalent of about $100 in unpaid wages. The off the clock tasks were regularly recurring tasks that were part of the employee’s closing responsibilities. On these facts, the Court held that the time had to be compensated.

However, the Court stopped short of providing a bright-line holding that the de minimis doctrine may never be applied under California law. Frustratingly for employers, the Court provided no guidance for employers on the parameters for when the doctrine would apply. Additionally, the Court’s opinion contains a lot of language explaining that there are many technologies available to employers and employees today (e.g. timekeeping apps on smart phones) that make tracking of time administratively easier, implying that it will be a difficult burden for an employer to successfully prevail on a de minimis theory in most any case.

Even more frustrating, the Court acknowledges in its opinion that California’s DLSE and courts have held that the de minimis doctrine indeed applies under California law.  Nonetheless, the Court basically distinguished the cases and rejected the DLSE interpretive guidance. This is patently unfair to employers that have justifiably relied on this precedent and DLSE interpretive guidance in adopting timekeeping and pay practices.  Now they face potential retroactive liability for unpaid wages due to the Supreme Court’s effective changing of the law to the detriment of employers. 

Takeaway
Today’s decision is another employee-sided opinion that hurts California employers. Although the state high Court stopped short of holding that the de minimis doctrine never may be used to defend against California wage claims, the Court rejected it on the facts of the Starbucks case, and made it difficult for employers to safely rely on the doctrine going forward in most any factual setting. California employers should ensure that all time spent by employees performing work tasks (and/or time when employees are under the control of the employer) is tracked and compensated — no matter how minimal the time.
 

About CDF

For over 20 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor

Robin Largent has a regular presence in California state and federal courts and has been lead defense counsel and appellate counsel for large and small California employers in litigation (and arbitration) ranging from individual discrimination and harassment claims to complex wage and hour representative and class actions. She also leads the firm’s appellate practice, having substantial experience and success handling appeals, writ petitions, and amicus briefs in both state and federal court on issues such as class certification (particularly in the wage and hour arena), manageability and due process concerns associated with class action trials, exempt/non-exempt misclassification issues, meal and rest break compliance, trade secret/unfair competition matters, and the scope of federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
> Contact   > Full Bio   Call 916.361.0991


Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP © 2018

About CDFWhat We DoContact UsAttorney AdvertisingDisclaimer