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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more