United States: 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 law. Federal courts have long 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.1

The California Supreme Court held that California's wage and hour statutes and regulations do not adopt the federal de minimis doctrine, and that California's de minimis rule was not applicable in the context of an alleged policy requiring employees to work minutes off the clock routinely.2 The court left open the question of whether there might be wage claims involving employee activities that were so irregular or brief in duration that it would not be reasonable to require employers to compensate employees for the time spent on such activities.3

THE FEDERAL DE MINIMIS DOCTRINE

The de minimis doctrine is an application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex, which means, "[t]he law does not concern itself with trifles."4 Federal courts have applied the doctrine in some circumstances 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.5 "When the matter in issue concerns only a few seconds or minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours, such trifles may be disregarded."6 Rather, "[i]t is only when an employee is required to give up a substantial measure of his time and effort that compensable working time is involved."7 The Ninth Circuit has explained that, in determining whether otherwise compensable time is de minimis under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), courts should consider: (1) the practical administrative difficulty of recording the additional time; (2) the aggregate amount of compensable time; and (3) the regularity of the additional work.8 The Ninth Circuit has noted that "[m]ost courts have found daily periods of approximately 10 minutes de minimis even though otherwise compensable."9

California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), the entity charged with the administration and enforcement of the state's wage and hour laws, has applied the de minimis doctrine for decades. Specifically, the DLSE has issued opinion letters explicitly adopting the de minimis rule, and concluding that employers are not obligated to pay employees for work time if "it is de minimis."10 The "DLSE's opinion letters, while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance."11 The de minimis doctrine also appears in the Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual published by the DSLE.12

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in Troester were nonmanagerial California Starbucks employees who performed store closing tasks.13 In their putative wage and hour class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that Starbucks failed to compensate them for hours worked and, as a result, violated various provisions of the Labor Code and wage orders.

The named plaintiff, Douglas Troester, worked for Starbucks as a shift supervisor.14 He submitted evidence that, during the alleged class period, Starbucks' computer software required him to clock out on every closing shift before initiating the software's "close store procedure," which transmitted daily sales, profit and loss, and store inventory data to corporate headquarters, on a separate computer terminal in the back office.15 After completing this task, he activated the alarm, exited the store, and locked the front door.16 In compliance with Starbucks policy, he then walked his coworkers to their cars.17 He also occasionally reopened the store to allow employees to retrieve items they left behind, waited with employees for their rides to arrive, or brought in store patio furniture mistakenly left outside.18 Troester estimated that, on a daily basis, he spent 4-10 minutes performing these closing tasks.19 He sought payment for 12 hours and 50 minutes of compensable work over a 17-month period, amounting to $102.67 at a wage of $8 per hour.20

Starbucks moved for summary judgment on the ground that Troester's uncompensated time was so minimal that Starbucks was not required to compensate him.21 The district court concluded that the de minimis doctrine applied and granted summary judgment against Troester.22 Troester appealed, arguing that the district court erroneously applied the standard generally reserved for federal FLSA claims to his state law wage and hour claims. Recognizing that the California Supreme Court had never addressed whether the federal de minimis doctrine applied to wage claims brought under California law, the Ninth Circuit certified this question to the California Supreme Court.23

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECISION

The California Supreme Court considered two questions. First, it considered whether California's wage and hour statutes or regulations adopt the de minimis doctrine found in the FLSA.24 Second, the Supreme Court considered whether the de minimis principle, which has operated in California in various contexts, applies to wage and hour claims, and to the specific facts of the case.25

The Supreme Court first concluded that California has not adopted the de minimis doctrine, as there is no indication in the text or history of the relevant California Labor Code statutes26 or the governing Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order27 of such adoption. The applicable wage order defines hours worked as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so[.]"28 California case law has clarified that the time during which the employee is "suffered or permitted to work" encompasses the time during which the employer knew or should have known that the employee was working on its behalf.29 The wage order further provides that wages must at least be paid to an employee "for all hours worked."30 Similarly, the California Labor Code obligates an employer to pay an employee additional compensation for "[a]ny work" beyond eight hours in any workday or 40 hours in any workweek.31 Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court concluded that the federal de minimis rule was less protective than the California rule establishing that employees must be compensated for "all hours worked" or "[a]ny work" beyond eight hours a day.32 Further, the Supreme Court determined that nothing in the language of the wage orders or the Labor Code demonstrated any intent to incorporate the de minimis rule.33

The Supreme Court then concluded that, although California has a de minimis rule that is a background principle of state law, the rule was not applicable to the specific facts of the case, where Starbucks required Troester to work "off the clock" several minutes per shift. The Supreme Court determined that applying the de minimis rule would fly in the face of the statutory purpose of the governing wage order and Labor Code statutes, which require liberal construction and demand that employers compensate employees for all hours worked.34 For example, the Supreme Court observed that the wage orders expressly concern themselves with small amounts of time, as demonstrated by the fact that they demand strict adherence to the requirement to provide most nonexempt employees two daily 10-minute rest breaks.35 "[T]he strict construction of a law prohibiting any interference with or reduction of a 10-minute rest break is difficult to reconcile with a rule that would regard a few minutes of compensable time per day as a trifle not requiring compensation if too inconvenient to record."36 The Court also noted that the IWC regulations have been more expansive than the FLSA in defining the time for which an employee must be compensated, therefore militating against application of the federal de minimis doctrine.37 The Supreme Court discounted the fact that the DLSE has applied the de minimis rule for decades on the ground that neither the manual nor the opinion letters are binding.38

Notably, the decision left open the question of whether there might be wage claims involving employee activities that are so irregular or brief in duration that it would not be reasonable to require employers to compensate employees for the time spent on them. Briefs on behalf of Starbucks invoked various hypothetical scenarios of potential de minimis activity in an attempt to illustrate that abolishing the de minimis rule would lead to undue burdens and absurd results for both employers and employees. For example, if, after an employee clocks out, a customer approaches the employee and asks for the location of a product and the employee spends five seconds pointing the customer in the right direction, should the employer be held liable for not capturing or paying the employee for that time?39 If, before clocking in to the employer's computerized timekeeping system, the employee pushes the wrong button and accidentally turns off his or her computer, should the employer be held liable for not paying the employee the two minutes it took to reboot the computer?40 If an employee reaches to "punch in" or "punch out" with a time card, sneezes, drops the time card, and must first pick it up, must the employer pay the employee for the extra seconds "worked"?41 The Supreme Court recognized that there are a "wide range of scenarios"42 in which the de minimis principle may arise, thereby impliedly acknowledging that there may be limited circumstances in which application of the de minimis doctrine is appropriate. However, the Court expressly declined to "prejudge[] these factual permutations," and "decide[d] only whether the de minimis rule is applicable to the facts of this case as described by the Ninth Circuit."43

In sum, in light of "the wage order's remedial purpose requiring liberal construction, its directive to compensate employees for all time worked, the evident priority it accorded that mandate notwithstanding customary employment arrangements, and its concern with small amounts of time," the Supreme Court concluded that the de minimis doctrine had no application under the circumstances of this case.44

IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS

The Troester ruling reaffirms that employers should diligently track all time spent by nonexempt employees and should ensure that all working time is compensated. The Court noted that "employers are in a better position than employees to devise alternatives that would permit the tracking of small amounts of regularly occurring worktime,"45 and proposed several alternative ways to track such time. Whether any of these alternatives will be suitable for a particular workplace will depend on the circumstances of the workplace.

While the Troester opinion may trigger a rise in lawsuits seeking to recover for uncompensated time spent by employees before clocking in or after clocking out, it is important to note that the decision is limited in its application. Specifically, the Supreme Court did not decide "whether there are circumstances where compensable time is so minute or irregular that it is unreasonable to expect the time to be recorded."46

Entities that engage nonexempt employees should consult with legal counsel to determine how the Troester opinion will impact their businesses, and how best to implement any steps they may take in response. In particular, employers should consult legal counsel before implementing any of the time-tracking alternatives proposed by the Court.

Footnotes

1 Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829, 835 (2018).

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014), p. 524.

5 See Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692-93 (1946).

6 Id. at 692.

7 Id.

8 Lindow v. U.S., 738 F.2d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 1984).

9 Id. at 1062.

10 DLSE Op. Letter 2010.04.07 (Apr. 7, 2010) p. 3; DLSE Op. Letter 1995.06.02 (June 2, 1995) pp. 2-3 ("[T]he Labor Commissioner has an established policy which holds that time which is de minimis need not be counted toward the employer's obligation to pay and, likewise, de minimis time may not be considered for purposes of deduction from an employee's pay."); DLSE Op. Letter 1994.02.03-3 (Feb. 3, 1994) p. 4; DLSE Op. Letter 1988.05.16 (May 16, 1988) pp. 1-2 (adopting Lindow test and recognizing that de minimis "determinations will have to be made on a case-by-case basis").

11 Brinker Restaurants Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1029, fn. 11 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

12 DLSE Manual (2002) §§ 46.6.4, 47.2.1-47.2.1.1, 48.1.9-48.1.9.1.

13 Troester, 5 Cal.5th at 835.

14 Id.

15 Id. at 835-36.

16 Id. at 836.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 843.

20 Id. at 847.

21 Id. at 835.

22 Id. at 836.

23 Id.

24 Id. at 835.

25 Id.

26 CAL. LAB. CODE § 510, subd. (a).

27 IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001, concerning the "public housekeeping industry," includes establishments such as Starbucks that provide food and beverages. See Wage Order No. 5-2001, subd. 2(P).

28 Wage Order No. 5-2001, subd. 2(K).

29 Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575, 584-85 (2000).

30 IWC WAGE ORDER NO. 5-2001, subd. 4(A).

31 CAL. LAB. CODE § 510, subd. (a).

32 Troester, 5 Cal.5th at 840.

33 Id. at 841.

34 Id. at 844.

35 Id.

36 Id. at 844-45.

37 Id. at 845.

38 Id. at 842.

39 Brief of Amici Curiae Employers Group and California Employment Law Council in Support of Position of Respondent, p. 6 (Apr. 17, 2017).

40 Id.

41 Brief of Amici Curiae Association of Southern California Defense Counsel in Support of Defendant and Respondent Starbucks Corporation, p. 40 (April 13, 2017).

42 Troester, 5 Cal.5th at 843.

43 Id.

44 Id. at 847.

45 Id. at 848.

46 Id. at 835.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions