680 F. App'x 511
9th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Douglas Troester, a former Starbucks shift supervisor, sued on behalf of a putative class of non-managerial California employees claiming unpaid time for post‑shift closing tasks (e.g., running the store close procedure, walking coworkers to cars, reopening store for forgotten items).
- Starbucks removed the case to federal district court and moved for summary judgment, arguing the uncompensated time was de minimis.
- The district court assumed the activities were compensable but found the daily unpaid time (about 4–10 minutes per shift; ~12 hours, 50 minutes total over 17 months) de minimis and granted summary judgment for Starbucks.
- The Ninth Circuit panel concluded the appeal could turn on whether the federal FLSA de minimis doctrine applies to California Labor Code wage claims and therefore certified the question to the California Supreme Court under Cal. R. Ct. 8.548.
- The court stayed further proceedings and directed the clerk to transmit records to the California Supreme Court for its decision on the certified question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FLSA de minimis doctrine applies to claims under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, 1197 | Troester: California law should not incorporate a federal de minimis limitation; state law affords greater worker protections and requires pay for time employer controls | Starbucks: Federal de minimis doctrine applies and bars recovery for insubstantial, difficult‑to‑record time | Ninth Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court for authoritative resolution and stayed proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (establishes federal de minimis doctrine under FLSA)
- Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir.) (articulates multi‑factor test for de minimis under FLSA)
- Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 833 (Cal.) (refuses to import certain FLSA rules into California law)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal.) (states California wage laws can provide greater protection than FLSA)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal.) (courts should not adopt federal standards absent agency intent)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal.) (rejects reliance on federal law when state intent differs)
- Tidewater Marine W., Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal.) (declines federal overtime calculation rule for California claims)
- Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.) (applied de minimis in context of California wage statement claim)
- Gomez v. Lincare, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 508 (Cal. Ct. App.) (applied de minimis to a non–Labor Code common‑law claim)