Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 29 2018, @07:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the all-work-and-no-pay-makes-Jack-a-litigious-boy dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following (paywalled) story:

July 26, 2018

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.

More details are available from pbs.org:

The ruling came in a lawsuit by a Starbucks employee, Douglas Troester, who argued that he was entitled to be paid for the time he spent closing the store after he had clocked out.

Troester said he activated the store alarm, locked the front door and walked co-workers to their cars — tasks that required him to work for four to 10 additional minutes a day.

An attorney for Starbucks referred comment to the company. Starbucks did not immediately have comment.

A U.S. District Court rejected Troester’s lawsuit on the grounds that the time he spent on those tasks was minimal. But the California Supreme Court said a few extra minutes of work each day could “add up.”

Troester was seeking payment for 12 hours and 50 minutes of work over a 17-month period. At $8 an hour, that amounts to $102.67, the California Supreme Court said.

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

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @01:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2018, @01:17AM (#714556)

    I'm sure this guy didn't have to pay the legal fees. This really stinks of labor lawyers wanting to set a precedent somewhere. I fully expect a new round of late night commercials from the same two or three "law firms": "Has your employer not been compensating you for all of the time you put in on your job? Call the law firm of Dewey, Cheatam and Howe for a free consultation to see if you could be due a large cash award for your lost backpay.*"

    * I am a non-attorney spokesman. If there is any merit in your case at all, it will be referred to a legitimate law firm, though we will continue to keep our foot in the door to take a cut off of the top.