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
- New York Enacts Amendment to Limit Frequency of Pay Damages for Manual Workers
- DOL Shelves Independent Contractor Rule
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage and Hour Tip . . . Contractual Indemnification May Not Guard Against FLSA Claims
- California Court of Appeal Holds That Prospective Meal Waivers for Shifts Between Five and Six Hours are Enforceable
- New Jersey Supreme Court Confirms: Commissions Are Wages Under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law