California Supreme Court
The wages of California workers are not de minimis, nor are they “trifles” with which the law has no concern. The California Supreme Court here rejected the federal de minimis standard of the FLSA. California prohibits employers from obtaining free labor by requiring unpaid work of their employees, no matter how short the time period.TROESTER v. STARBUCKS CORP.
THE CASE WAS TAKEN ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE 9TH CIRCUIT
The California Supreme Court accepted certification of a question from the 9th Circuit: Does California recognize the de minimis doctrine applied by the federal courts to the Fair Labor Standards Act? Under that doctrine, employers are not required to pay employees for small periods of time that may be, because they are irregular or simply too short, too difficult administratively to record.
PLAINTIFF PERFORMED UNCOMPENSATED DUTIES WHEN CLOSING THE STORE
Plaintiff Troester alleged that he and a class of plaintiffs who worked for Starbucks were owed for uncompensated work time. He alleged that he was required to clock out, and then perform a number of tasks necessary to close the store.
THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Applying the federal de minimis doctrine, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant. It found that, over a 17 month period, Plaintiff Troester had been unpaid for about $102.67, that even though the tasks were performed regularly they were nonetheless difficult to capture administratively.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court.
THE DE MINIMIS DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY IN CALIFORNIA WAGE & HOUR LAW
Our Supreme Court examined first whether the Wage Orders or statutory scheme contemplated including the de minimis doctrine.
It first traced the doctrine from its roots in US Supreme Court precedent to its codification in the federal regulations. Subsequent case law interpreted it to mean that three considerations must be included: (1) practical administrative difficulty of recording the time, (2) the aggregate amount of time
The California Supreme Court noted there was nothing in the IWC Wage Orders or the Labor Code that even impliedly adopted the de minimis standard. Pointing out that the IWC Wage Orders “are to be accorded the same dignity as statutes,” and that they “take precedence over the common law to the extent they conflict,” the court found that California law frequently, as here, provides greater protection to its workers than federal law. The court disregarded contrary interpretations in the DLSE Enforcement Manual and opinions, which, while persuasive, were not controlling, as were the IWC Wage Orders.
Although declining to say that the de minimis doctrine would never apply, the court held that it did not apply in the facts of this case, and that California’s wage and hour law “is indeed concerned with ‘small things.’”
CONCLUSION
The California Supreme Court has again confirmed its commitment to protecting the wages of California workers. That those wages are “too small” or de minimis is not a defense to the requirement that workers must be paid for their work.
CELA’S INVOLVEMENT
Many CELA members worked hard to gain this positive outcome for California’s workers. Congratulations to Shaun Setareh, as well as David Spivak, and Louis Benowitz. Ari Stiller of Kingsley & Kingsley submitted an amicus brief on CELA’s behalf.
We wish also to thank our partners in workers’ rights for their amicus briefs: Anna Kirsch and Hina Shah for Women’s Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law, Bet Tzedek, Centro Legal de la Raza, National Employment Law Project and Legal Aid at Work. This success shows again how we work together to impact people’s lives.
Cal. Supreme Court, 4th Dist., Filed 7/26/18, Opinion by Justice Liu
Read More