Working Off the Clock Laws Require Payment for All Work, California Court Says

The California Supreme Court ruled that federal working off the clock laws are not a sufficient reason to avoid paying workers for substantial work done off the clock on a regular basis.

Federal wage working off the clock laws that allow companies to deny paying employees for work done in small increments of time outside of on-the-clock hours do not apply under California law, said the court’s decision.

The ruling comes after former Starbucks employee Douglas T. filed a lawsuit against the coffee giant in 2012, alleging he was forced to work off the clock for up to ten minutes each day.

He said after he and similar employees clocked out, they would have to transmit sales information, set the store alarm, walk coworkers to their vehicles, and occasionally bring in patio furniture and condiments for the night.

According to his lawsuit, Douglas and his fellow workers should have been paid for the time spent off the clock, and he said he is owed a little more than $100. The amount was determined by the 17 months he worked there, and the 13 hours he said he was required to work off the clock.

At the time, he was making $8 an hour, which adds up to $102.67 for 13 hours of work, said the California Supreme Court.

Debate on Working off the Clock Laws

Douglas saw his case dismissed by a federal judge in San Francisco back in 2014. At that time, the judge expressed he thought it would be unrealistic to ask Starbucks to track the small number of minutes preparing the store to close. Upon Douglas appealing the ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals requested the California Supreme Court determine whether federal working off the clock laws applied under California’s state laws.

The California Supreme Court indicated that state law requires employers to pay their employees for any duration of time that the employees have no choice but to be at their place of employment. The court also stated there could be instances “that are so irregular or brief in duration” that payment to the employee is not required. These brief instances might include picking up and throwing in the trash a cup that was left littering the ground on the premises.

Douglas described work that, for the most part, was regularly required of him to perform off the clock. Setting the alarm, locking the doors and walking coworkers to their cars were required each time he closed the store, he said.

Starbucks issued a statement that it was disappointed in the ruling, and the company’s attorneys filed a brief arguing that the California working off the clock laws could lead to “innumerable lawsuits over a few seconds of time.”

But the California Supreme Court said these few extra minutes worked on a regular basis could add up for employees. Associate Justice Goodwin Liu wrote that what could seem to be a small amount of time and money to a company could be a great concern to an employee.

Regarding the $102 owed to Douglas, Liu wrote, “That is enough money to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries, or cover a month of bus fares. What Starbucks calls ‘de minimis’ is not de minimis at all to many ordinary people who work for hourly wages.”

Douglas’s working off the clock laws lawsuit will return to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Working off the Clock Laws Lawsuit is Case No. S234969 in the Supreme Court of California.

Join a Free California Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were forced to work off the clock or without overtime pay within the past 3 years in California, you have rights – and you don’t have to take on the company alone.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now