Recently I had the honor of moderating a panel discussion on issues facing restaurant operators in California.  The panelists were Joseph Pitruzelli owner of Wurstküche, Francis Drelling General Counsel at Specialty Restaurants Corporation, Naz Moin former director of Human Resources at PizzaRev, and Madelyn Alfano owner of Maria’s Italian Kitchen.   

 You can listen to the discussion on my podcast available on Spotify (link here) or iTunes (link here).

 Even though the discussion is focused on the hospitality industry, the lessons are applicable to companies, owners, and human resource managers operating in nearly every type of company and industry.  This Friday’s Five covers the top five points I took away from the discussion: 

  1.  There is no one background that is best in determining success.  As you will hear, the panelists all are successful in their respective companies, but all have different backgrounds, and backgrounds that you would not necessarily think would make them successful in their respective positions.  Pursue what interests you, and you will be successful.   
  2. Single restaurant owners face the same issues as multi-unit operators.
  3. Hire for personality – everything else can be taught. 
  4. Back of the house workers do affect the company culture. 
  5. Employees should not be surprised when they are let go.  Constant coaching, counseling, and documentation is critical in managing employees.  Also, remember to give positive feedback to employees who you see doing exceptional work.   

I would like to thank the panelists again for joining me for the excellent discussion.  I hope you learn as much as I did from the conversation.

Here are five questions that a company, either through its managers or human resources department should be asking its employees on a routine basis:

1. Are you aware of the company’s open-door policy?

If the employee is not aware of the policy, explain it to them, and document the conversation.  If done right, this can go a long way in making employees more comfortable in voicing concerns or making complaints.  As I always explain to clients, it is better knowing the bad facts and issues sooner than later.

2. Can you explain the company’s meal and rest break policy?

See if the employees can explain the policy.  If they can, great – document the conversation.  If they cannot, explain the policy to them and go over any questions they have and document that this was done.  Then follow up with the employee to ensure that they have been able to take all of their meal and rest breaks.

3. You have not had any complaints in the past, do you have any now?

Proactively asking employees if they have any complaints can help address issues before they become problematic.  This is taking an active approach to the open-door policy.  I like to call it the active-door policy – you are actively engaging employees to talking with the company and given them an opportunity to voice any concerns.  These conversations should be documented.

4. Are there any employees you simply do not like working with?

Some employers might feel that this is too direct, but I think the question may draw out potential areas of conflict between employees.  While workplace conflict is not illegal in and of itself, the quicker employers can address and resolve conflict greatly reduces the likelihood of litigation.  If the company can address these concerns, and potentially deal with or move employees so that they do not have to work with others they do not like, it could be a solution to a more productive workforce.

5. Would you recommend that your friends should work here?

If yes, then ask for the recommendations.  The answer is no, ask follow-up questions about why.  Again, the quicker the employer can address potential problems, the better.

As noted above, these discussions should be documented.  The documentation will be good evidence that the company has an open-door policy and is effectively dealing with employee’s complaints on a timely basis.  This could be essential in defending many types of claims that could arise through litigation.

Five reminders about the timing requirements for providing final wages to employees:

  1. An employee who is discharged must be paid all of his or her wages, including accrued vacation, immediately at the time of termination.
  2. An employee who gives at least 72 hours prior notice of quitting, and quits on the day given in the notice, must be paid all earned wages, including accrued vacation, at the time of quitting.
  3. An employee who quits without giving 72 hours prior notice must be paid all wages, including accrued vacation, within 72 hours of quitting.
  4. An employee who quits without giving 72-hours’ notice can request their final wage payment be mailed to them. The date of mailing is considered the date of payment for purposes of the requirement to provide payment within 72 hours of the notice of quitting.
  5. Final wage payments for employees who are terminated (or laid off) must be made at the place of termination. For employees who quit without giving 72 hours’ notice and do not request their final wages be mailed to them, the final wages must be made available at the office of the employer within the county in which the work was performed.

For any employer who willfully fails to pay any wages due a terminated employee can subject the employer to “waiting time penalties” under Labor Code section 203. Waiting time penalties accrue at an amount equal to the employee’s daily rate of pay for each day the wages are not paid, up to a maximum of 30 calendar days.  The court in Mamika v. Barca (December 1998) set forth that waiting time penalties continue to accrue on a daily basis:

Under this scheme, unpaid wages continue to accrue on a daily basis for up to a 30–day period. Penalties accrue not only on the days that the employee might have worked, but also on nonworkdays. (Cf. Iverson v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 544, 548, 213 Cal.Rptr. 399 [unless otherwise specified, “days” mean “calendar days”].)

The California Supreme Court ruled in Pineda v. Bank of America (November 2018) that the statute of limitations for recovering waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 is three years.  California employers need to review the obligations to timely pay employees their final wages to reduce this potential liability in the form of waiting time penalties, which can add up to a significant amount, even for minimum wage earners.

How is it Friday already, and summer is coming to a close quickly?  Time for another Friday’s Five, and this week I cover five reminders about meal break waivers in California:

1. Meal break timing obligations.

An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than thirty minutes.  A second meal period of not less than thirty minutes is required if an employee works more than ten hours per day. Labor Code Section 512.

The California Supreme Court held in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, that:

We conclude that, absent waiver, section 512 requires a first meal period no later than the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work, and a second meal period no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work.

See my previous post on when employers must authorize employees to take meal breaks.

2. Employer’s duty to authorize meal breaks.

As long as employers effectively allow an employee to take a full 30-minute meal break, the employee can voluntarily choose not to take the break, and the employer would not owe the employee the additional hour of pay in the form of premium pay for a violation. The Supreme Court explained in Brinker:

The employer that refuses to relinquish control over employees during an owed meal period violates the duty to provide the meal period and owes compensation [and premium pay] for hours worked. The employer that relinquishes control but nonetheless knows or has reason to know that the employee is performing work during the meal period, has not violated its meal period obligations [and owes no premium pay], but nonetheless owes regular compensation to its employees for time worked.

While employees may voluntarily work through meal breaks, if the employer knows or should have known that the employee working during this time, the employer must ensure that the employee is paid for the time working.

3. Employees may waive meal breaks for shifts less than 6 hours or shifts less than 12 hours.

If the total work period per day for an employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.  Likewise, if the if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and employee only if the first meal period was not waived.  Labor Code Section 512.

 4. Meal break waivers for shifts less than six hours and less than 12 hours are not required to be in writing, but should be.

Labor Code section 512 does not require an employee’s waiver of their meal breaks for shifts less than six hours or shifts less than 12 hours to be in writing.  However, in order to avoid any potential disputes and to be able to defend against any potential claims by disgruntled employees, it is always a good practice to have the voluntary waivers documented and signed by employees.

5. Don’t confuse “on-duty” meal agreements with meal period waivers.

On-duty meal period agreements are different than meal period waivers.  The Wage Orders provide for an “on duty” meal period that is an exception to the required meal break if the following requirements are met:

An “on duty” meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time.

Wage Order No. 4-2001(a)(emphasis added). Unfortunately, the definition of the “nature of the work” is not clear, and has been construed very narrowly against employers.  For example, the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has issued an opinion letter addressing whether a shift manager in a fast food restaurant working the night shift would be allowed to take a “on duty” meal period.  The DLSE concluded that based on the facts presented in the situation of the fast food restaurant, the nature of the work in the restaurant should not prevent the shift manager from being relieved of all duties for 30 minutes, and therefore the on-duty meal period would not be valid in this context. Click here to download the opinion letter.

Click here for more information about on-duty meal period agreements. Implementing an on-duty meal period agreement in California needs to be approached with caution, and should only be done with assistance from knowledgeable counsel.

California legislature passed AB 3080 which prohibits employers from entering into arbitration agreements with employees and now is waiting for Governor Brown’s signature.  It is uncertain whether the Governor will sign the bill into law, as in 2015 the Governor vetoed AB 465 that contained a similar prohibition on arbitration agreements in the workplace.  This Friday’s Five covers five aspects of the bill that California employers need to understand:

1. Bill bars confidential agreements regarding harassment.

AB 3080, if passed, would add Section 432.4 to the Labor Code, which would:

…prohibit any applicant for employment, employee, or independent contractor from disclosing to any person an instance of sexual harassment that the employee or independent contractor suffers, witnesses, or discovers in the workplace or in the performance of the contract, or otherwise opposing any unlawful practice, or from exercising any right or obligation or participating in any investigation or proceeding with respect to unlawful harassment or discrimination.

There is some question about whether this language would prohibit employers from entering into settlement agreements with employees that require confidentiality of its terms.  This practice is prevalent in employment litigation, not only in harassment claims, but in all aspects of employment litigation, such as when settling wage claims.  One rational for keeping a settlement agreement confidential is to be able to settle a claim and stop litigation without admitting liability.  If the amount of settlements are known, it may be viewed as an admission by other third-parties, which could increase the amount of litigation filed against the employer.  The ability to keep settlements confidential aids in settling cases, and if employers cannot confidentially resolve claims it could lead to longer and harder fought litigation.

2. Prohibits arbitration agreements for wage and hour claims, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

The bill would also add Section 432.6 to the Labor Code, prohibiting employers from entering into arbitration agreements with employees.  The bill provides that “a person shall not…require any applicant for employment or any employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act” or the Labor Code.  This would bar arbitration agreements for claims of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, in addition to barring arbitration agreements that cover wage and hour claims under the Labor Code.

3. Prohibits employers from taking any employment action against employees who refuse to enter into arbitration agreements.

The bill would make it illegal for an employer to:

…threaten, retaliate or discriminate against, or terminate any applicant for employment or any employee because of the refusal to consent to the waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or [the Labor Code], including the right to file and pursue a civil action or a complaint with, or otherwise notify, any state agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity of any alleged violation.

4. Creates personal liability for violations.

The bill designates that “a person” shall not take the actions prohibited in the bill, opening the possibility for individual liability for anyone violating the requirements of the bill.

5. Likely legal challenges to AB 3080 if it is eventually signed into law.

In May 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, that employment arbitration agreements that bar class actions are enforceable.  The vote was 5 to 4 in upholding the use of arbitration agreements in the workplace.  If the bill is signed into law the by the Governor, it will likely be challenged on the grounds that is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Employers need to keep a close eye on this bill, and even if the bill is passed, there will likely be a lengthy legal challenge on its validity.  Employers should review whether arbitration agreements are appropriate for their workforce with counsel, and need to keep in contact with their attorneys regarding the use of confidentiality agreements and arbitration agreements in the workplace.

I’m moderating a panel discussion on best practices for how to hire and retain good employees at the Western Food Service and Hospitality Expo (WFHE).  The panelists are Joseph Pitruzelli owner of Wurstküche, Francis Drelling General Counsel at Specialty Restaurants Corporation, Naz Moin former director of Human Resources at PizzaRev, and Madelyn Alfano owner of Maria’s Italian Kitchen.  It is on Monday, August 20 at 4 p.m. in the Education Theater (session number S127.  Hope you join us if you are attending the Expo.

In addition, in connection with the California Restaurant Association (CRA), my firm is offering a special an in-person training session that will comply with all the requirements outlined in the regulations regarding California’s Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for supervisors (AB 1825) . Supervisors for large employers are required to take this training every two years.  As a bonus, Sexual Harassment Prevention registrants will gain complimentary access to the WFHE show floor, valid day of training (Tuesday, 8/21/18).  The training is at the LA Convention Center, and will take place from 9 to 11:30 a.m. (the show starts at 11 a.m.).  This training is offered to CRA members for FREE and $25 for non-members. Both members and non-members will need to register online here before the day of the training.  Click here for more details about the training and to register.

My firm will have a booth at the show again this year, so if you attend the show, be sure to stop by and say hello.  We are at Booth #1543 (across the aisle from the California Restaurant Association’s booth).  The Expo runs from August 19 to 21 and is at the LA Convention Center.

Also, please stop by our booth and say hi to us if you are attending.  We have some nice swag for readers of the blog!

With the summer coming to an end quickly, and people trying to fit in their vacations during these final weeks, it is a good time to review a few aspects of vacation time under California law. There are numerous rules about how employees earn vacation, and it is often tricky to draft a proper policy without some advice from an experienced California employment attorney. Many out-of-state employers assume that their policy complies with California law when setting up operations, but California is unlike most other states when it comes to vacation time. This Friday’s Five reviews five issues on vacation policies that can create problems for employers operating in California:

1. No use-it-or-lose-it policies permitted.
Under California law, vacation is treated the same as earned wages and vest as the employee performs work. Because vacation is earned proportionally as the employee works, any type of policy requiring employees to lose vacation that has already been earned is illegal under California law.

2. Reasonable caps are allowed.
While employers cannot implement “use-it-or-lose-it” policies, they can place a reasonable cap, or ceiling, on vacation accrual. The DLSE explains:

Unlike “use it or lose it” policies, a vacation policy that places a “cap” or “ceiling” on vacation pay accruals is permissible. Whereas a “use it or lose it” policy results in a forfeiture of accrued vacation pay, a “cap” simply places a limit on the amount of vacation that can accrue; that is, once a certain level or amount of accrued vacation is earned but not taken, no further vacation or vacation pay accrues until the balance falls below the cap. The time periods involved for taking vacation must, of course, be reasonable. If implementation of a “cap” is a subterfuge to deny employees vacation or vacation benefits, the policy will not be recognized by the Labor Commissioner.

3. Vacation is a form of earn wages that must be paid out on the employee’s last day of work.
An employee who is discharged must be paid all of his or her wages, including accrued vacation, immediately at the time of termination. See Labor Code Sections 201 and 227.3

4. Deductions are not permitted from employee’s final wages for use of vacation that was not accrued.
Vacation is treated as a form of wages under California law, and by permitting an employee to take vacation time before it is earned, is effectively providing a loan to the employee.  Employers may not utilize self-help remedies to recover debts from the employee’s final pay check, including deducting wages owed to an employee to cover vacation that time was used but had not yet accrued.

5. “Cliff vesting” policies are problematic.
Employers may set probationary periods or waiting periods during which employees do not accrued vacation time. However, the DLSE maintains that employers may not maintain a policy granting employees a lump sum of vacation upon reaching certain dates. The DLSE’s view on this type of “cliff vesting” is that the employer is really attempting to provide for accrued vacation, but at the same time is improperly attempting to limit its liability of having to pay out a pro rata share of the accrued vacation if the employee does not work until the date in which the vacation is granted to the employee. It is safer for employers to avoid these lump sum grants of vacation, and simply set a time period (i.e., the employee’s first six months of employment) that the employee does not accrue vacation.

As you can probably tell by now, California law is vastly different than Federal law and other states. It can be a trap for employers, but with some understanding of the obligations created under the law it can easily be managed.

Hope you are enjoying the final weeks of the summer.

California employers need to routinely need to review their policies and practices to make sure they are complying with intricacies that may arise in their work place.  In law school, attorneys-to-be are taught to “issue spot,” and the unfortunate litigation landscape that faces California employers, business owners and their supervisors must also “issue spot” and make sure the unique aspects of California employment law are being complied with to avoid liability.  This Friday’s Five covers five issues employers should issue spot on a routine basis to help ensure compliance and reduce liability:

1. Reporting time pay

Reporting time pay is triggered when an employee is required to report for work, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half their usual or scheduled day’s work.  If this occurs, the employee needs to be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which cannot not be less than the minimum wage.

It is important for employers to train managers and supervisors about this requirement, so that they understand the need to pay reporting time pay, or report the instance to HR to ensure the employee receives reporting time pay if they are sent home before one-half of their shift is worked.

2. Split shift pay

A split shift is a work schedule that is interrupted by a non-paid, non-working period established by the employer that is other than a meal or rest break.  So if the employee is required to work a shift, but then asked to report to a second shift over later in the same day, the employer may be obligated to pay a split shift premium.  Again, this issue is one that front-line managers and supervisors need to be trained on to ensure that split shifts are being reported to HR or other appropriate management in the company to ensure any split shift pay obligations are being paid.

3. Expense reimbursement issues

Under Labor Code section 2802, employers need to reimburse employees for any business expenses they incur in the course of completing their work for the employer.  This basic concept sounds easy in principle, but given the technology used in today’s workplaces, there can be many areas that expose employers to liability.  For example, if employees are required to work at home, have access to the internet, print reports, or send and receive faxes, the costs for completing this work should be reimbursed by the employer.  Other areas that are often litigated are cell phone reimbursement, mileage reimbursement, and reimbursement for the costs of uniforms and safety equipment.

4. Off-the-clock claims

Employers can be held liable for unpaid wages if they knew or should have known that employees were working and not being paid for the work.  Employers should establish and regularly communicate a time keeping policy to employees and supervisors.  The policy should set forth that employees always have an open door to complain to their supervisors and other managers or human resources about missed meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, or unpaid wages.  If employees routinely acknowledge that they understand the time keeping policy and are agreeing to record their time through the employer’s system, this can go a long way in defending any off-the-clock claims.

5. On-Call time

Even though employees are traveling to a work site or even sleeping, if the employee is under the control of the employer, the employer may have to pay them for being on-call.  For example, the California Supreme Court held that security guards who were required to reside in a trailer provided by the employer at construction worksites would still need to be paid for the time they slept while on-call.  In that case, during weekdays the guards were on patrol for eight hours, on call for eight hours, and off duty for eight hours.  On weekends, the guards were on patrol for 16 hours and on call for eight hours.  The Court held that the employer was not permitted to exclude the time guards spent sleeping from the compensable hours worked in 24-hour shifts.  See Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.

Likewise, in Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., the California Supreme Court held that, “we conclude the time agricultural employees are required to spend traveling on their employer’s buses is compensable under Wage Order No. 14-80 because they are ‘subject to the control of an employer’ and do not also have to be ‘suffered or permitted to work’ during this travel period.”  Generally, travel time is considered compensable work hours where the employer requires its employees to meet at a designated place and use the employer’s designated transportation to and from the work site.

This week’s Friday’s Five covers five huge misconceptions about California employment law that can land employers into huge legal trouble:

1. Meal and rest breaks seem so trivial.

The topic may seem trivial for companies that have not faced this litigation before, or for out of state employers who wrongly believe California cannot be much different than federal requirements.  However, with the penalty owed to employees of one hour of pay for each missed meal or rest break (i.e., up to two hours of penalty pay per day) these violations add up to significant amounts of liability very quickly.  A verdict against Wal-Mart for $172 million is a good example of the liability that even small employers face in this regard.

2. My payroll company understands the laws about wages and itemized pay statements.

Payroll companies are not law firms and they will not notify you if you are not paying your employees properly, calculating overtime correctly, tracking and reporting paid sick leave appropriately, or even ensure that the paystubs they generate for your employees comply with the law.  It is the employer’s responsibility to ensure the employment laws are being complied with, and it is wise to have an experienced employment lawyer review these practices and audit the practices of the payroll company.

3. The employee’s title determines if they are owed overtime.

An employee’s title is not determinative of whether they qualify as an exempt employee and do not need to receive overtime pay.  See my previous article on the various exemptions that employees may qualify for, and the requirements necessary for employees to meet those exemptions.

4. Employees can be provided “comp time” instead of paid overtime.

While it is true employers may provide employee’s comp time in lieu of overtime, there are many technical restrictions that must be met in order for comp time plans to be legal under California law.  Labor Code section 204.3 only authorizes employers to provide nonexempt employees with compensated time off instead of paying for overtime if the following requirements are met:

  • Payment for comp time must be at the overtime rate of pay (i.e., not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment, or double time if applicable)
  • Must be in writing before work begins
  • Employees cannot accrue more than 240 hours of compensation time off
  • Employee has to make a written request for comp time in lieu of overtime
  • Employee must be scheduled to work at least 40 hours a week
  • Employee must be paid at rate of pay in effect at time of payment
  • Payment at termination must be at high of current or three-year average rate of pay
  • Employee must be permitted to use comp time within reasonable period
  • Employer must keep records of comp time accrued and used

5. My company does not need employment counsel to review our polices on a regular basis, we have it under control.

If you have been a reader of this blog for any time period, you understand that every employer in California needs to understand their legal duties when it comes to employing workers.  And with competent employment law counsel [:)] it is not hard to comply with the law, but it is difficult to keep current with the law and ensure all legal obligations are being met.  California employment law is regularly changing.  In addition, employers need to make sure they are complying with intricacies that may arise in their work place, such as:

 

Also, in case you missed it, my Podcast is live:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUbLzjwuUao&t=2s

iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/zaller-talk/id1405859405?mt=2

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6zpZovQKMeZ5l2DYL0nh3q?si=KggpsQ6pSIGf1-PCMdM8dw

Have a great weekend.

Douglas Troester filed suit alleging that Starbucks violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay him for short periods of time he spent closing the store.  He alleged that Starbucks failed to pay him for time spent walking out of the store after activating the security alarm, for the time he spent turning the lock on the store’s front door, and for the time he spent occasionally reopening the door so that a co-worker could retrieve a coat.  Based on these allegations, Troester filed a class action under the California Labor Code for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, and failure to timely pay all final wages.  Over the 17-month period of his employment, Troester’s unpaid time totaled approximately 12 hours and 50 minutes. At the then-applicable minimum wage of $8 per hour, this unpaid time added up to $102.67, not including any penalties or other remedies.

In the lower court, Starbucks filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss Plaintiff’s case based upon the de minimis doctrine.  The trial court agreed with Starbucks and dismissed the case, assuming that the additional time would be administratively difficult to capture.  However, this ruling was appealed to the California Supreme Court for review based on Plaintiff’s argument that the de minimis doctrine is not applicable under California law.  The Supreme Court’s decision has major ramifications for California employers.  For this week’s Friday’s Five, here are five issues about the Troester v. Starbucks Corp. holding and the de minimis doctrine employers must understand:

1. The de minimis doctrine: What is it?

The trial court, in granting Starbucks motion for summary judgment, explained the de minimis doctrine as follows:

Under this doctrine, alleged working time need not be paid if it is trivially small: “[A] few seconds or minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours … may be disregarded.” Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 25–26, 126 S.Ct. 514, 163 L.Ed.2d 288 (2005).

The California Supreme Court explained the concept as follows:

The de minimis doctrine is an application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex, which means “[t]he law does not concern itself with trifles.” (Black’s Law Dict. (10th ed. 2014) p. 524.) Federal courts have applied the doctrine in some circumstances to excuse the payment of wages for small amounts of otherwise compensable time upon a showing that the bits of time are administratively difficult to record.

2. What factors do courts look to in determining whether time is de minimis?

The factors some other courts have look to in determining whether time is de minimis include (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 trial court in the Starbucks case noted that numerous courts have concluded that daily periods of about 10 minutes are de minimis.

3. Does the de minimum doctrine apply to California law?

The California Supreme Court held that the de minimis doctrine adopted under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not apply to California employers.  However, the Court left open the possibility of some narrower version of the doctrine to apply in wage and hour cases:

In other words, although California has not adopted the federal de minimis doctrine, does some version of the doctrine nonetheless apply to wage and hour claims as a matter of state law? We hold that the relevant wage order and statutes do not permit application of the de minimis rule on the facts given to us by the Ninth Circuit, where the employer required the employee to work “off the clock” several minutes per shift. We do not decide whether there are circumstances where compensable time is so minute or irregular that it is unreasonable to expect the time to be recorded.

…

We decline to decide whether a de minimis principle may ever apply to wage and hour claims given the wide range of scenarios in which this issue arises.

4. Legal and technical advances have limited the need for a de minimis doctrine in California.

The California Supreme Court refused to adopt the FLSA de minimis doctrine for a number of reasons, but specifically stated that the “modern availability of class action lawsuits undermines to some extent the rational behind a de minimis rule with respect to wage and hour actions.”  The Court explained that individual recoveries which are too small to be worth the individual’s or the court’s time can be aggregated to “vindicate an important public policy.”  “In this age of the consumer class action this maxim [de minimis non curat lex] usually has little value.”

Second, the California Supreme Court relied upon the “technical advances that enable employees to track and register their work time via smartphones, tablets, or other devices” that have made it easier to record employee’s time worked as an additional reason not to adopt the federal de minimis doctrine under California law.

Therefore, the Court held, “[a]n employer that requires its employees to work minutes off the clock on a regular basis or as a regular feature of the job may not evade the obligation to compensate the employee for that time by invoking the de minimis doctrine. As the facts here demonstrate, a few extra minutes of work each day can add up.”

5. The Supreme Court recognized some practical steps employers can take to address the “practical administrative difficulty of recording small amounts of time for payroll purposes.”

The Court held that employers are in a better position than employee to “devise alternatives that would permit the tracking of small amount of regularly occurring work time.”  The Court described some alternatives employers could implement include:

  • structuring work so that employees would not have to work before or after clocking out
  • using technology to have time tracking tools to more accurately record employee’s time
  • estimating the time it takes employees to perform work and to compensate employees for that time

The California Supreme Court’s decision, Troester v. Starbucks Corp., No. S234969, 2018 WL 3582702, at *2 (Cal. July 26, 2018) can be read here.