This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Civil Litigation,
Labor/Employment,
California Supreme Court

Jul. 30, 2018

Sky remains in place after high court wage ruling

After waiting a little over two years, California employers finally got an answer to the question of whether the Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine applies to California wage and hour claims.

Arthur F. Silbergeld

Employment Law Partner
Thompson Coburn LLP

Labor & Employment

Phone: (310) 282-2529

Email: asilbergeld@thompsoncoburn.com

Temple Univ Law School

Arthur is based in Los Angeles and is in the firm's Labor & Employment Practice Group.

See more...

Tristan R. Kirk

Associate
Winston & Strawn LLP

Phone: (213) 615-1700

Email: tkirk@winston.com

UCLA SOL; Los Angeles CA

See more...

Sky remains in place after high court wage ruling
A Starbucks in downtown Los Angeles. Douglas Troester filed a class action claiming that Starbucks required designated supervisors to work short amounts of time off the clock. Starbucks' closing protocol required. On July 26, the California Supreme Court said Starbucks had to pay Troester for that time. (New York Times News Service)

After waiting a little over two years, California employers finally got an answer to the question of whether the Fair Labor Standards Act's de minimis doctrine applies to California wage and hour claims. The California Supreme Court took up the issue upon request from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 2016 DJDAR 8568 (Aug. 16, 2016). The high court's answer to the 9th Circuit's question is a clear victory for the plaintiffs in that case. Tr...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up