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.
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