30 Cal. App. 5th 504
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Carrington sued Starbucks under PAGA alleging Starbucks failed to provide timely meal breaks or pay meal-period premiums in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; she attached required pre-suit LWDA notices.
- At bench trial the court found Carrington individually suffered at least two meal-period violations (late or missed breaks with no premium) and that Starbucks’s policies/practices produced representative violations affecting many employees.
- Key corporate evidence: Starbucks’s scheduling system automatically schedules meal breaks only when a shift is scheduled over five hours; for shifts scheduled at five hours or less (but that end up slightly over five hours) managers must decide whether to schedule a break or pay a premium; managers had discretion and sometimes failed to document investigations.
- Experts analyzed millions of shifts: plaintiff’s expert found ~1.6% of shifts were 5:01–5:14 and about 76% of those lacked break premiums; Starbucks’s expert found similar rates (about 74% unpaid in a comparable window).
- Trial court imposed a reduced PAGA penalty of $5 per violation, totaling $150,000 (75% to LWDA, 25% to employees). Starbucks appealed arguing Carrington was not an aggrieved employee, the claims were too individualized for representative treatment, and time records cannot establish violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carrington is an "aggrieved employee" with individual standing | Carrington’s time records and testimony show two shifts with work >5 hours without timely meal breaks and no premium; she accurately recorded time and complied with store rules | Starbucks: Carrington did not suffer the specific alleged violation; records show compliant breaks or premium pay; any violations de minimis | Held: Carrington proved individual violations; provision of a late meal is a violation and de minimis doctrine does not apply here |
| Whether Carrington proved a representative PAGA claim | Corporate policies and testimony (Starbucks’s designated PMK) show a uniform practice/systems gap producing many "slightly more than 5 hours" shifts without premiums; experts quantify large number of similar occurrences | Starbucks: Practices vary by store/manager; issues are individualized; cannot sustain representative relief | Held: Substantial evidence supports representative PAGA liability; policies and data show a consistent practice leading to violations |
| Applicability of the de minimis rule to short/brief violations | Carrington: Timekeeping systems accurately record punches; administrative recording is feasible; Troester does not compel de minimis relief here | Starbucks: Violations are so brief or sporadic they are de minimis and not compensable | Held: De minimis doctrine rejected on this record because accurate time records exist and administrative difficulty rationale is absent |
| Use of time records / rebuttable presumption from payroll data | Carrington: Time records combined with corporate testimony and policy evidence quantify violations and support representative finding | Starbucks: Time records alone can’t show why breaks were late (personal choice vs employer control); the company rebutted presumption by showing personal reasons and manager variability | Held: Court permissibly relied on time records in conjunction with corporate policy testimony; Starbucks failed to rebut that the policies/practices caused violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employer must provide meal period no later than end of fifth hour; bona fide relief from duty suffices unless employer caused missed breaks)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (PAGA allows aggrieved employee to pursue civil penalties on behalf of state)
- Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (Cal. 2018) (de minimis doctrine has limited application to off‑the‑clock wage claims)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) (employee entitled to additional hour of pay immediately upon being forced to miss a meal period)
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (background on PAGA and state’s interest in private enforcement)