Podcast: California Employment News - Time to Do Away With Rounding Policies
California Employment News: Time to Do Away With Rounding Policies
Case In Point: Recent Developments in Employment Law
Employment Law This Week: Pregnant Workers, Time-Rounding Practice, Gender Discrimination, National Origin Discrimination
I have blogged about these automatic deduction cases, but they nevertheless keep popping up with disturbing regularity. In another example of this phenomenon, employees have sued a Michigan healthcare employer, alleging...more
In Perry et al. v. City of New York, the Second Circuit upheld a large jury verdict in favor of a collective of workers regarding off-the-clock work. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the principle that employers will...more
For decades, the Department of Labor (DOL) has recognized the impracticability of requiring Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) nonexempt employees to clock in exactly at the beginning of their scheduled shifts. In most...more
An employer’s quarter-hour rounding policy did not comply with California law because the company could and did track the exact time in minutes that employees worked each shift—but did not pay them for it, according to a...more
In Camp v. Home Depot, a Sixth Appellate District panel recently found against an employer that—although its electronic system recorded employee work-time to the minute—rounded daily totals to the nearest quarter-hour for...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held on October 24, 2022, in Cariene Cadena et al. v. Customer Connexx, LLC et al., No. 21-16522, that the time a group of call center workers spent booting up their computers...more
A decade ago, a California Court of Appeal held that employers lawfully could round employees’ time punches if the rounding policy was neutral on its face and as applied. See See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 210 Cal....more
On October 24, 2022, the Sixth District issued a decision in in Camp v. Home Depot, handing employees a major win in the wage and hour arena by holding that Home Depot’s practice of rounding hourly employees’ total daily...more
It is every employer’s worst nightmare: an unsuspecting employee receives an email in the early morning from an individual claiming to be his supervisor. The email asks him to follow up on an urgent work assignment that needs...more
In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this seventh day of the holidays, my labor and employment...more
Earlier this year, became, for many of us, part of our “new normal.” And such arrangements are likely to continue in the future. With the number of new infections continuing to rise throughout the United States, many...more
On November 1, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Palmer et al. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., No. 20-cv-2468, 2020 WL 6388599, dismissed a lawsuit against Amazon alleging failures to...more
Join hosts Bud Bobber and Keith Kopplin as they discuss important wage and hour topics for manufacturing industry employers, including compensable work, pre and post-shift activities, donning and doffing, meal and rest...more
Smartphones have changed the employment landscape. Non-exempt employees can communicate via text or email any time of day or night, and may be expected to. My habit in the evenings is to check my work email, even if only to...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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