In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, the California Supreme Court was asked by the Ninth Circuit to answer whether the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine applies to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197? The California Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine does not apply. 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. One Court stated that in recording working time under the FLSA, insubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, may be disregarded. This rule applies only where there are uncertain and indefinite periods of time involved of a few seconds or minutes duration, and where the failure to count such time is due to considerations justified by industrial realities.  Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit explained that “in determining whether otherwise compensable time is de minimis [under the FLSA], the Court will consider (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.”

After discussing the rule, the California Supreme Court held that California’s wage and hour statutes and regulations have not adopted the de minimis doctrine found in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Moreover, California’s relevant wage order and statutes do not permit application of the de minimis rule when an employer has required an employee to work off the clock several minutes per shift.

If you have been forced to work off the clock, you may be entitled to recovery. For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.