The California Supreme Court recently held in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 9th Cir. No. 14-55530 (July 2018) that the federal de minimis rule, which excuses employers from paying employees for time that is administratively difficult to record, is not applicable in California.
In Troester, a Starbucks employee brought an action against Starbucks alleging that he should be paid for the additional 10 minutes of work that he performed for Starbucks after clocking out every day. Over 17 months, the employee claimed to have worked 12 hours and 50 minutes of unpaid time. The Supreme Court, siding with the employee, stated that “nothing in the language of the [IWC] wage orders or [California] Labor Code shows an intent to incorporate the federal de minimis rule.” The Supreme Court essentially said that the de minimis rule is slightly outdated as recordation of time worked has been made easier by “technical advances that enable employees to track and register their work time via smart phones, tablets or other devices.”
The Supreme Court noted that this case involved time that an employee routinely works for minutes off-the-clock. It did not answer, however, whether the de minimis rule might be applicable for 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.
Below is a link to the California Supreme Court’s decision:
This article was written by Ryan Hansen, Law Clerk
