Starbucks must pay workers for off-the-clock tasks, says Supreme Court

A landmark court ruling in a wage theft case against Starbucks could signal changes for employers throughout California. Starbucks can no longer avoid paying employees for time spent on performing tasks outside their regular work hours.

Former shift supervisor Douglas Troester filed a class action lawsuit against Starbucks in 2012. Troester said he and other employees were often required to set the store alarm, put away chairs, lock the door and complete other similar tasks after clocking out each day. He spent up to 10 minutes on the tasks each day, which added up to nearly 13 hours of unpaid work during his 17 months at Starbucks. The lawsuit claimed Troester missed out on more than $100 of pay during that time.

In 2014, a federal judge ruled in favor of Starbucks. The case was dismissed based on a federal wage law that says employers are not required to pay employees for working extra minutes beyond their regular daily hours as the time would be difficult to record. The California Supreme Court took on the case after Troester appealed. The court decided that the federal standard did not apply under California labor laws.

Under state law, employees should be paid for any time they spend on tasks at their workplace outside their normally scheduled hours. “$100 is enough to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries or cover a month of bus fares,” Justice Goodwin Liu wrote, adding that the so-called nominal amounts of money hold value for “many ordinary people who work for hourly wages.”

The ruling applies to thousands of current and former Starbucks workers throughout the state. It could also force many California companies to change their employment practices, particularly restaurants and retailers that employ hourly workers. Failure to do so could result in more wage theft lawsuits.

Read more

When workers face harassment or unfair treatment, the consequences can extend far beyond a bad day at the office.

Oakland Settles $1 Million Lawsuit After City Worker Reports Sexual Harassment and Retaliation by Successive Supervisors

When workers face harassment or unfair treatment, the consequences can extend far beyond a bad day at the office. A recent lawsuit settlement involving a former employee of Oakland’s Department of Violence…

READ ARTICLE
One recent case involving CleanNet USA, a janitorial franchising company, is a clear example of what can happen when employers try to sidestep labor laws.

Janitorial Company Pays Millions to California Workers Over Misclassification

Many California workers may not realize they are entitled to more legal protections than their job title suggests. This is especially true in industries where companies rely on complicated business models that…

READ ARTICLE
A recent case against Costco Wholesale Corp. reveals the legal obligations employers have beyond the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

Insights from the Costco Lawsuit: How Medical Leave and Reasonable Accommodations Intersect in California

When a medical crisis hits, workers often assume their employer will follow the law, offer support and make reasonable accommodations. But what happens when the company’s leave policy limits clash with California…

READ ARTICLE
Mobley alleges that Workday’s AI system discriminated against him based on his race, age and disability status.

When Algorithms Make the Decisions: What Workers Should Know About AI and Employment Discrimination

Hiring practices have changed dramatically in the last decade. Many job seekers today never speak to a person during the early stages of applying for work. Instead, they interact with software platforms…

READ ARTICLE
SEEN ON
cnnmoney
marin-ij
dailypost
news10