California Labor &
Employment Law Blog
Aug 22, 2016

California Supreme Court to Address De Minimis Time

Topics: Wage & Hour Issues

Last week, the California Supreme Court agreed to review Troester v. Starbucks, a case involving the issue of whether de minimis work time must be compensated under California law.  In Troester, the plaintiff was a former employee of Starbucks who sued the coffee giant because he was not paid for certain closing-related activities such as time spent walking out of the store after activating the alarm and time spent locking the door -- activities that took a minute or two and effectively had to be performed after the plaintiff clocked out on Starbucks' timekeeping software.  Plaintiff sued for unpaid wages under California law.  A federal district court in California granted summary judgment in favor of Starbucks, ruling that this "work" time was de minimis and that Plaintiff was not owed compensation for it.  Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  Rather than decide the issue on the merits, the Ninth Circuit certified the issue to the California Supreme Court (because the issue is one of California law).  Specifically, the Ninth Circuit asked the state high court for its opinion on whether California law recognizes a de minimis standard similar to the de minimis standard that has been recognized and applied under the Fair Labor Standards Act for decades.  Last week, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide this issue for the Ninth Circuit.

Although a decision likely is a year or more away, it will provide useful guidance for California employers and for California employment law practitioners.  There is no reason why the de minimis doctrine should not apply under California law, just as it does under the FLSA.  Indeed, the state's Department of Labor Standards Enforcement itself has endorsed the de minimis standard.  However, many plaintiffs' lawyers nonetheless argue that California wage and hour law is more protective of employees than the FLSA and that California does not recognize a de minimis standard whereby de minimis time worked need not be compensated.  Stay tuned to see how the California Supreme Court decides the issue.  

About CDF

For over 25 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

CDF Labor Law LLP © 2020

About CDF What We Do Contact Us Attorney Advertising Disclaimer Privacy Policy Cookie Policy