Skip to main content

Baristas At Starbucks That Do (Minimal) Work After Clocking Out: Not Compensable Time



Troester v. Starbucks Corp. - United States District Court, Central District of California

Facts:  Douglas Troester served as a shift supervisor at Starbucks.  Troester brought suit against Starbucks and alleged Starbucks violated the California Labor Code by failing to compensate him for time spent closing up the store after he had already clocked out.  Troester alleged that this uncompensated time included instances when he walked out of the store after setting the alarm, time spent locking the door, walking employees to their cars after closing up, and waiting with employees until their ride came, among other tasks.  Troester filed a class action and alleged these instances amounted to violations of the California Labor Code.  Starbucks moved for summary judgment and alleged that any alleged uncompensated time was "de minimis" and therefore uncompensable.  

Holding:  The District Court granted Starbucks' Motion for Summary Judgment that dismissed the claims brought by Troester.  Generally, time spent at work is compensable.  However, if the time spent after clocking out is found to be de minimis, the employer is not required to compensate the employee.  Courts have previously established that de minimis time is "a few seconds or minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours."  In order to determine whether work time is de minimis, courts consider several factors:  (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.  The Court went on to cite several cases which have held that daily periods up to ten minutes are de minimis.  

In this case, by Troester's own admission, the time spent doing many actions after having clocked out, amounted to no more than a minute or two each day.  The Court pointed to several statements made by Troester in which Troester stated that it took very little time (often less than a minute) from when he clocked out to when he set the alarm.  At that point, it took Troester less than a minute to leave the store after setting the alarm.  When the Court added up all the time Troester claims he spent at work after clocking out, the Court held that the time added up to less than four minutes.  As a result, after recognizing that the de minimis doctrine is a defense to a wage brought under the California Labor Code, the Court granted Starbucks' Motion for Summary Judgment. 

The Takeaway:  Employers can breathe a sigh of relief on this one.  As expected, the often limited and short tasks that many employees do after clocking out for the day likely does not amount to compensable time.  When considering the three factors to determine whether time spent is de minimis, employers can have a good idea of whether they risk wage and hour violation claims from their employees.

Readers should remember the recent case handed by the United States Supreme Court that dealt with time at work spent changing into and out of work clothes (Sandifer v. United States Steel blog).  This case follows that ruling which held that the time spent changing in and out of work clothes is de minimis and therefore uncompensable time as well.  

Judgment:  The District Court granted Starbucks' Motion for Summary Judgment that dismissed the California Labor Code violation claims brought by Troester.  

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Feess

Date:  March 7, 2014

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/6ae548887bd110009ec1e0db5501c0ed01.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more