Price v. Starbucks Corp.
192 Cal. App. 4th 1136
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Price worked as a Starbucks entry-level employee from October 22 to November 16, 2007, and was terminated on November 16.
- Plaintiff alleged Labor Code violations: failure to timely pay wages upon termination, failure to pay an additional hour of reporting time pay on the termination date, and noncompliant wage statements, plus UCL and PAGA claims.
- Price received two paychecks: one for work through November 10 and another for two hours of reporting time pay for the November 16 meeting.
- Starbucks demurred to the wage-statement claim and moved to strike continuing-wages allegations, which the trial court granted.
- Summary judgment was granted for Starbucks on the reporting-time-pay issue and its derivative claims, and the judgment was upheld on appeal.
- The appellate court held there was no cognizable injury from noncompliant wage statements and that Starbucks complied with the two-hour minimum reporting-time pay requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injury requirement for wage-statement damages | Price asserts injury from missing information on wage statements justifies damages. | Starbucks argues no cognizable injury without injury from missing information. | No injury proven; demurrer upheld |
| Whether wage statements violated section 226 and entitle damages | Statutory violations caused injury and damages to class. | No cognizable injury from missing information; damages not available. | Demurrer proper; no damages under §226(e) |
| Continuing wages for untimely payment upon discharge | Price claimed continuing wages for alleged late payment at discharge. | Disclosure that discharge occurred on Nov 16; no continuing-wages claim. | Strike of continuing-wages allegations; no claim |
| Proper interpretation and application of the two-hour reporting time pay rule | Should have paid for average shift length (3.3 hours) as reporting time pay. | Regulation provides a 2-hour minimum; Price was not scheduled to work and attended a meeting; 2 hours correct. | Starbucks complied; two-hour minimum applies |
| Derivative nature of UCL and PAGA claims | UCL and PAGA rely on underlying wage-timing violations. | If underlying claims fail, derivatives fail as well. | Derivative claims fail; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 769 (1992) (demurrer review and standard of pleading sufficiency)
- Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Service, 81 Cal.App.4th 39 (2000) (demurrer de novo review; leave-to-amend analysis)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985) (amendment necessity and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc., 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (2010) (injury requirement for 226(e) damages; not injury merely from missing item)
- Cel‑Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) (primary/derivative claims; control of UCL pleading)