News & Analysis as of

De Minimis Claims CA Supreme Court

Fisher Phillips

Employees Win Latest California Bag Check Case – But Court Leaves One Final Cliffhanger On The Compensability Of Closing Tasks

Fisher Phillips on

The long-fought bag-check battle against Apple is coming to an end, and the employee class just won a major victory in California when a federal court of appeals ruled that the company must pay its workers for the time spent...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

California Employers, Are You Ready To Be "Schooled"?

As Labor Day and "back to school" beckon, what new laws and trends are we seeing in California? Here are my picks: NATURAL HAIR MUST BE ALLOWED. A new California statute says natural hair styles must be allowed. So take a...more

Polsinelli

California says “Goodbye” to the De Minimis Doctrine

Polsinelli on

For years, courts applied the de minimis doctrine “to excuse the payment of wages for small amounts of otherwise compensable time upon a showing that the bits of time are administratively difficult to record.” Troester v....more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: December 2018

Payne & Fears on

This month’s key employment law cases address meal periods and payment of wages....more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Oh, The Places The California Supremes Will Go!

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: With apologies to Dr. Seuss, we’ve penned an ode to the judicial chaos of the year just past, highlighted by three California Supreme Court decisions—Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., Dynamex Operations v....more

Fisher Phillips

Top 50 Workplace Law Stories Of 2018

Fisher Phillips on

It’s hard to keep up with the news these days. It sometimes feels like you can’t step away from your phone, computer, or TV for more than an hour or so without a barrage of new information hitting the headlines—and you’re...more

Payne & Fears

9 FAQs About De Minimis Doctrine After Troester v. Starbucks

Payne & Fears on

In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, the California Supreme Court recently held that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. As a follow-up to our recent...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Starbucks to Face Suit Over De Minimis Time

Starbucks to Face Suit Over De Minimis Time - Why it matters - A putative class action against Starbucks will move forward after the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit applied the reasoning of the California Supreme...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Best In Law: No Off-The-Clock Work - BB&K Partner Joseph Ortiz Writes About The Starbucks Wage-And-Hour Class Action Decision In...

California’s wage-and-hour laws are the most protective in the country. These protections, however, often lead to bankrupting, class-action lawsuits. Originally posted in The Press-Enterprise and other Southern California...more

Fisher Phillips

Of Trifles And Truffle Mochas: How A Recent Case Against Starbucks May Impact Retailers

Fisher Phillips on

This past summer, in a high-profile case brought against Starbucks, the California Supreme Court resolved an open question concerning compensable time. Or, at least it did to some extent. The court held that California...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Employment Law Commentary, Volume 30, Issue 8: Troester v. Starbucks Corp. – What Is A Trifle, Anyway?

On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued another highly anticipated opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., clarifying application of the federal de minimis doctrine to claims for unpaid wages under California...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Employment Law - August 2018 #3

California Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Doctrine - Why it matters - Answering a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court declared that the Fair Labor Standards...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: July 2018

Payne & Fears on

This month’s key California employment law cases are from the California Supreme Court and from the California Court of Appeal. Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820 (2018) - Summary: Employer that requires...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Down To The Minute: Starbucks Wage-And-Hour Decision - California Supreme Court Rejects Employer-Friendly Defense In Class Action

California employers cannot require employees to routinely work — even for just minutes — off-the-clock without compensation, according to the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Troester v. Starbucks. ...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

California Supreme Court Says Employers Must Pay for Several Minutes of Off-the-Clock Work

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Last Thursday, July 26, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that coffee retailer Starbucks must pay its employees for off-the-clock duties that take several minutes per shift. In issuing its opinion, the...more

Perkins Coie

California’s High Court Rejects FLSA’s De Minimis Doctrine

Perkins Coie on

The California Supreme Court issued an opinion on July 26, 2018, and found that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. Federal...more

Buchalter

California Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Doctrine for Off-The-Clock Work Claims

Buchalter on

Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (July 26, 2018) - On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision entitled Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, No. S234969, which should be of concern to...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

California Supreme Court Rejects Employer Argument that It Need Not Pay for De Minimis Amounts of Time Worked by Employees

Once again, California's Supreme Court has underscored that California employment law can differ from federal law in significant, and typically more employee friendly, ways. In Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation,1 a...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Employment Law Reporter August 2018: California High Court Restricts Employer-Friendly ‘De Minimis’ Defense for Off-the-Clock Work

Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a ground-breaking decision that severely limits employers’ ability to rely on the ‘de minimis’ doctrine as a defense to not paying for minimal increments of off-the-clock...more

Alston & Bird

California Tosses De Minimis Doctrine for Off-the-Clock Work

Alston & Bird on

The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling...more

Blank Rome LLP

“De Minimis” May Be Down, but It’s Not Out—And What Does It Mean for Employer Rounding Policies in California?

Blank Rome LLP on

On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...more

Littler

WPI Wage Watch: Minimum Wage & Overtime Developments (July Edition)

Littler on

Usually legislative and regulatory developments slow down in the summer months, which is good news because July brings more pressing matters than reading bills or proposed rules, like eating too many hot dogs or yelling at an...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

How Much Is Closing a Door Worth? The California Supreme Court Addresses the De Minimis Doctrine - Labor & Employment Newsletter

On August 6, 2012, Douglas Troester, a former shift supervisor at a Starbucks location, filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in state court in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Troester filed his lawsuit on behalf of himself and a...more

Kilpatrick

California Supreme Court: the FLSA’s de minimus rule does not apply to California wage and hour claims, especially wage and hour...

Kilpatrick on

It is a small world after all. Last week, the California Supreme Court decided that the de minimus rule, imported by the U.S. Supreme Court into the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1946 (Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery...more

BakerHostetler

California State Court Rules That Loose Change Adds Up … and So Will the Penalties

BakerHostetler on

We’ve all been there: You pull up to a parking spot, hop out to check whether the meter requires payment on Sunday and then grumble as you fish around in the coin tray. With any luck, you find a quarter or two. More often...more

44 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide