In mid August, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear a case filed against Starbucks Corp. to determine whether employees can bring wage-and-hour lawsuits over short periods of unpaid time; e.g. de minimis time.
The lawsuit accuses Starbucks Corp. of not paying wages or overtime compensation for after-hours tasks performed by an employee. In this case, the employee claimed he should have been paid for the short periods of time he spent closing up the store after he clocked out.
Some of the tasks the Plaintiff claims he engaged in were:
- Locking the door after setting the alarm (which took about 1 minute);
- As a safety precaution, walking co-workers to their cars (which took about 45 seconds);
- Reopening the store to let a co-worker grab a forgotten personal item;
- Shutting down the store’s computer system;
- Bringing patio furniture in once every couple of months.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal found that in total, the Plaintiff spent about 12 hours and 50 minutes off the-clock, or about $102.67 worth of unpaid time per the minimum wage at the time.
At trial, the Court granted Starbucks’ motion for summary judgment (a pre-trial motion to dismiss a case) finding that the time spent was de minimis and that the employee was not entitled to payment. While acknowledging that the closing activities occurred on a regular basis, the Court said the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) de minimis doctrine foreclosed recovery in the suit.
The employee appealed asserting that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to California wage claims. Because of the conflict in the application of California and federal law, the California Supreme Court has been asked to determine whether the FLSA’s de minimis doctrine also applies to claims for unpaid wages in California.
Under the FLSA, employers are relieved from liability for unpaid wages where otherwise compensable time was de minimis. However, the California Supreme Court has yet to rule on the application of the FLSA doctrine to state law.
“The Ninth Circuit Court stated that and has long held that state wage and hour laws ‘although at times patterned after federal regulations, also sometimes provide greater protection than is provided under federal law in the Fair Labor Standards Act and accompanying federal regulations.” “The federal de minimis rule could be seen as less employee-protective than California’s wage and hour laws and, therefore, at odds with those laws.”
For these reasons, the Appellate Court presented the following question to the California’s Supreme Court: “Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine … apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code?”
Because this case is still pending and it may be years before we see a decision, California employers are cautioned to monitor any “off the clock” time performed by an employee to avoid such claims.
Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corp., Case Number S234969, in the Supreme Court of the State of California.