Employers Hold Their Breath as Calif. Supreme Court Reconsiders Off-The-Clock Laws
On May 1, the California Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the much anticipated case Troester v. Starbucks Corporation.
April 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM
6 minute read
On May 1, the California Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the much anticipated case Troester v. Starbucks Corporation. The case is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but that case is on hold awaiting an answer from the California high court, which has been asked to answer a key question for the Ninth Circuit—does the de minimis doctrine, traditionally applied in both California and federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases, apply to wage claims made under the California Labor Code? The California Supreme Court's answer to this question could dramatically change the landscape for businesses with employees in California.
What Is the De Minimis Rule?
The de minimis doctrine is asserted by employers as a defense under the FLSA. The doctrine states that employers are not responsible for compensating employees for small amounts of time (less than 10 minutes) spent off the clock preparing for or concluding a work shift. Under the doctrine, to analyze whether the employee claim is de minimis, courts will consider the practical administrative difficulty of recording the additional time, the aggregate amount of compensable time and the regularity of the additional work, according to Lindow v. United States.
What Has Been the Law Until Troester?
Until the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the Troester case, state and federal courts in California had applied the de minimis doctrine, concluding in a number of cases that California employers were not responsible for compensating employees for the time spent by those employees off the clock either preparing for a shift (booting up computers, turning on lights) or wrapping up shifts (turning off computers, locking stores, etc.). In one case in 2012, a federal court in the Central District of California held that the few minutes required daily to turn on and log in to a computer were de minimis. Gillings v. Time Warner Cable, (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012). In another case, in 2007, a federal court in San Diego determined that putting on and taking off safety gear before and after a shift was de minimis and noncompensable, as in Abbe v. City of San Diego (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007).
What Is Troester's Argument and Starbucks' Response on Appeal?
Douglas Troester is a former Starbucks shift supervisor who sued in state court in California in 2012, claiming that Starbucks violated the California Labor Code because Troester allegedly was not compensated for time he spent off the clock closing the store he worked at. Troester alleged that in order to close the store as a shift manager, he turned off computers and lights and activated the store alarm. After activating the alarm, Troester alleges he then locked the front door of the store. Further, following Starbucks' safety protocols, Troester would also walk with his co-workers to their cars and stay outside the store with one employee who was waiting for a car ride home. Troester claimed he should have been compensated for these additional few minutes of time he spent at the end of each shift, even though he had already clocked out from work.
Troester brought a putative class action lawsuit in state court against Starbucks for unpaid wages under California law. Starbucks then removed the case to federal court. The federal trial court granted summary judgment for Starbucks in 2014, concluding that Troester's off-the-clock work was de minimis and that the plaintiff was not owed compensation. Troester appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, contending that the de minimis doctrine is not a defense to wage claims asserted under the California Labor Code. Starbucks has argued that the de minimis doctrine does indeed apply, as numerous state and federal courts have applied the doctrine in the past.
The Ninth Circuit withheld a decision on the merits of Troester's appeal, instead asking the California Supreme Court to decide the state law issue of whether the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's de minimis doctrine applies wage claims in California under the California Labor Code.
What Happens Now and What Should Employers Do?
On May 1, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument from both Troester and Starbucks and will consider whether the federal de minimis doctrine is an appropriate defense to California wage claims—a question the California Supreme Court has never answered. If the California Supreme Court holds that the de minimis doctrine applies to Troester's claims, there will not be any substantial changes in how wage and hour claims are litigated in California, especially for claims made for small amounts of time spent off the clock.
If, however, the California Supreme Court declines to apply the de minimis rule to wage claims made under California law, employers doing business in California will be facing a new wave of wage and hour class action lawsuits by employees who claim that, as a result of Troester, the time they spend off the clock preparing for or wrapping up a shift of work must be compensated under the California Labor Code. Employees will also likely argue that as a result of the employer's failure to timely pay those wages at the end of each pay period, the employer is subject to waiting time penalties, attorney fees and costs. Any employer that has employees open or close retail or office locations to begin or end a work day, which would include unlocking or locking store or office space, turning on and off the phones, lights, computers and electronics, and turning off and on alarm systems and security measures, will undoubtedly face renewed risk of liability if the de minimis doctrine is no longer available as a defense.
While we await the ruling, employers should consult with human resources professionals and outside employment counsel regarding the review and implementation of their wage-and-hour policies for employee compensation for de minimis off-the-clock work. Ensuring that you have updated wage-and-hour policies, and ensuring that employees are aware of those policies, is the first step in preparing for what could be a sea change in how companies with employees like Douglas Troester will need to track time and compensate employees for time spent off the clock preparing for and concluding shifts.
Grant Alexander is a partner in Alston & Bird's litigation & trial practice group. He is based in Los Angeles and focuses his practice on employment, class action litigation and misappropriation of trade secret matters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement
4 minute readState Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
3 minute readApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Trending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250