Many classes of California workers are entitled to “reporting time pay,” which is partial compensation given to employees who go to work expecting to work a certain number of hours but are deprived of working the full time...more
In Troester v. Starbucks Corp., the California Supreme Court determined that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to California wage claims. While this ruling does not completely eviscerate this legal defense for...more
7/30/2018
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Civil Code ,
De Minimis Claims ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Labor Code ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Starbucks ,
Timekeeping ,
Wage and Hour
In Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California, the California Supreme Court determined how employers must calculate an employee’s overtime pay rate when the employee earns a bonus during a single pay period. While...more
In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, the California Supreme Court answered three questions from the Ninth Circuit concerning California’s “day of rest” statutes. The Court’s decision clarifies a significant ambiguity for employers...more