On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, ostensibly clarifying the application of the widely adopted de minimis doctrine to California’s wage-hour laws. But while the Court rejected the application of the de minimis rule under the facts presented to it, the Court did not reject the doctrine outright. Instead, it left many questions unanswered.
And even while it rejected the application of the rule under the facts presented, it did not address a much larger question – whether the highly individualized ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on … DOL Confirms Managers Are Blocked from Tip Pool Even When Working in Non-Supervisory Capacity
- Employers in California: Don’t Forget That “Joint Employers” Are Not Vicariously Liable for Each Other’s Conduct
- Many State and Local Minimum Wages Increased on January 1, 2025
- California Court of Appeal Holds That Every PAGA Action Necessarily Includes an Individual PAGA Claim – and Plaintiffs With Arbitration Agreements Must Arbitrate Their Individual Claims First
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on … California Meal and Rest Period Requirements, Revisited