Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883

    Starbucks loses pay case in California

    Starbucks loses pay case in California

    Published July 28, 2018

    Fox Business Outlook: Starbucks raises prices between 10 and 20 cents on all sizes of brewed coffee in a majority of its thousands of stores nationwide.

    Starbucks Corp. must pay employees for off-the-clock work such as closing and locking stores, the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that could have broad implications for companies that employ workers paid by the hour across the state.

    The decision is a departure from a federal standard that gives employers greater leeway to deny workers' compensation for short tasks, such as putting on a uniform, that are performed before they clock in or after they clock out.

    The federal Fair Labor Standards Act allows employers to disregard short bits of time that employees work if recording that time is impractical, the time required to complete the work is trivial, or the uncompensated tasks are irregular.

    The California court ruled that the federal standard, which was developed before the advent of sophisticated time-tracking technology, is a relic of a prior industrial world. The court set a new standard for the state in which employers must track and pay for time spent on regularly occurring tasks, even if they take only a few minutes.

    "The court is saying to employers, you should be actively trying to pay people for their work instead of using a free pass" from the federal doctrine, said Elizabeth Tippett, a professor at the University of Oregon School of Law who has studied time-tracking cases.

    In a case filed in 2012, Starbucks shift supervisor Douglas Troester alleged that the coffee chain's software required him to clock out on every closing shift before completing tasks such as transmitting sales information to corporate headquarters, activating an alarm system and locking the door. Altogether, the closing tasks took between four and 10 extra minutes a day, according to court filings. During the 17 months of his employment, Mr. Troester's unpaid time added up to around $103, the filings say.

    The case was dismissed by a federal court in 2014, so Mr. Troester appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the matter to California's Supreme Court to decide what is permissible under the California Labor Code.

    "We are disappointed with the Court's decision," a Starbucks representative said. "We will await further disposition of the case before the Ninth Circuit as the appeal process continues."

    The ruling leaves open the possibility that employers can justify not paying workers for some trivial amounts of work or for irregular off-the-clock tasks, said David Amaya, a partner in the San Diego office of management-side law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP. He has been watching the case on behalf of a client whose employees often stand in a security line for a couple of minutes before entering their workplace.

    "On closer calls, it comes down to what the courts perceive," he said. "Do they perceive the employer is just not making any effort to keep track of time?"

    In the Starbucks case, Mr. Amaya said that the court found the chain "just relied on the idea that a few minutes doesn't mean anything, and the Court said that sort of attitude won't fly in California."

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...-in-california
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    In a case filed in 2012, Starbucks shift supervisor Douglas Troester alleged that the coffee chain's software required him to clock out on every closing shift before completing tasks such as transmitting sales information to corporate headquarters, activating an alarm system and locking the door. Altogether, the closing tasks took between four and 10 extra minutes a day, according to court filings. During the 17 months of his employment, Mr. Troester's unpaid time added up to around $103, the filings say.
    The sending of sales information to corporate headquarters should be been done before he clocks out. Why ask them to send a report on their own time? This is an on the job and should be time covered important function. But, setting the alarm and locking the door, that should be compensated by the higher rate of pay he receives as a shift supervisor, seems to me. How can you clock out after you set the alarm and lock the door?

    The decision is a departure from a federal standard that gives employers greater leeway to deny workers' compensation for short tasks, such as putting on a uniform, that are performed before they clock in or after they clock out.
    The time spent putting on and taking off a uniform should be covered either by the time clock or clearly delineated as part of the rate of pay to include this extra 10 to 20 minutes per day. A lot of employees will want to show up early, take their time, visit with each other, hang out, before work starts, which is fine, that's good, but you don't expect to be paid for that discretionary time, but the actual time involved in getting into uniform should be compensated and probably already is taken into account with the rate of pay and should be if not. Most employees in food service get dressed at home, but there are a lot of manufacturing and processing companies that want control of uniforms for environmental reasons within their work production areas.

    The underlying problem probably isn't these tasks, it's more likely the rates of pay. When wages are so low that things like this are an issue for employees, then either the wages and rates of pay overall are too low to begin with or you made a bad hiring decision and got yourself a trouble-maker.
    Last edited by Judy; 07-29-2018 at 07:32 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Joe Arpaio loses bid to disqualify judge from profiling case
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2017, 07:38 PM
  2. Brewer loses bid to dismiss immigration law case
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-31-2012, 11:57 PM
  3. Pima County, AZ Loses Appeal in RTA Ballot Case:
    By kathyet in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2011, 11:05 AM
  4. If Arnold terminated, California loses
    By Brian503a in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-03-2006, 06:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •