Troester v. Starbucks Corporation
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820
| Cal. | 2018Background
- Troester, a Starbucks shift supervisor, alleged that closing tasks required him to work 4–10 minutes daily after he clocked out; over 17 months this totaled ~12 hours 50 minutes (~$102.67 at $8/hr).
- Starbucks’s store-closing software required clocking out before running a back-office ‘‘close store’’ procedure; Troester also escorted co-workers to cars and occasionally reopened the store.
- District court assumed the time was compensable but found the de minimis doctrine applied and granted summary judgment for Starbucks, concluding the short daily increments were administratively difficult to record.
- Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court whether the FLSA de minimis doctrine (Anderson/Lindow) applies to California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1197 and IWC wage orders.
- California statutes and Wage Order No. 5 require compensation for "all" or "any" hours worked; California law is generally more protective of employees than federal law and wage orders have statutory dignity.
- The California Supreme Court held the federal de minimis doctrine has not been adopted in California wage law and, on these facts, employers may not invoke de minimis to avoid paying regularly occurring minutes worked off the clock.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California adopted the FLSA de minimis doctrine | Troester: California law requires pay for all hours worked; no de minimis exception | Starbucks: Federal de minimis rule applies; small, hard-to-record increments can be disregarded | Not adopted: statutes and wage orders show no intent to incorporate federal de minimis rule |
| Whether a background de minimis principle applies under state law | Troester: Even if background maxim exists, it should not defeat statutory protection for all hours worked | Starbucks: The ancient de minimis maxim is part of background law and should limit trivial claims | Background maxim exists but does not apply to regularly occurring minutes off the clock; left open for extremely fleeting/irregular time |
| Application to Troester’s facts (regular 4–10 minutes/day) | Troester: Regular short off‑clock time must be compensated | Starbucks: Time is de minimis and administratively difficult to record; summary judgment proper | Held for Troester: employer cannot evade pay for regularly occurring minutes; de minimis inapplicable here |
| Burden of administrability and technological change | Troester: Employers can restructure or use technology; employees shouldn’t bear recording burden | Starbucks: Practical recording burdens justify de minimis | Court: Employers better positioned to capture or estimate regular small time; technology and class actions undermine administrability rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (recognized de minimis caveat in FLSA context)
- Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984) (articulated three-factor de minimis test used in federal courts)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (California interpretation of "suffered or permitted to work" and divergence from federal law)
- See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (approved neutral rounding policy if it does not result in underpayment over time)