Search form

What’s Left of the De Minimis Doctrine in California? Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals May Soon Decide

By Scott C. Lacunza and David T. Wiley
  • June 20, 2019

Last year, the California Supreme Court held the federal “de minimis” doctrine does not apply to California state law claims for unpaid wages for off-the-clock work allegedly performed on a regularly occurring basis in store closing and related activities. Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829. However, the California Supreme Court also noted that it was “leaving open whether there are wage claims involving employee activities that are so irregular or brief in duration that employers may not be reasonably required to compensate employees for the time spent on them.” So, what circumstances may qualify for the exception left open in Troester? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may soon answer the question left open by the California court.

On June 14, 2019, a panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in consolidated appeals involving the compensability of pre-exit inspections of employees’ bags when they are leaving their shifts at two retail clothing store chains. In both cases, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding the federal de minimis doctrine applied to the plaintiffs’ claims under the California Labor Code and the time spent on the inspections was not significant enough to render the time compensable. Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147762 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2017); Chavez v. Converse, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169167 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017). Both of these rulings, however, were based on the law at the time, under which courts (including the Ninth Circuit) still recognized the federal de minimis doctrine. Months later, the California Supreme Court in Troester rejected those holdings, concluding that, at most, a limited form of the de minimis doctrine might apply in some circumstances.

During the June 14 oral argument, the employers contended that the facts of Troester were distinguishable, in that the post-shift time at issue in Troester was between four and 10 minutes per shift. By contrast, in the cases before the Court, an expert time-and-motion study demonstrated the pre-exit inspections typically took less than one minute. In support of their argument that such small amounts of time fall within the exceptional circumstances alluded to by the California Supreme Court in Troester, the employers pointed to the high court’s statement that the applicable California laws “do not allow employers to require employees to routinely work for minutes off the clock without compensation.”

The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the holding of Troester unequivocally required the Court of Appeals to overturn the grants of summary judgment to the employers. They added that on remand in Troester, the district court rejected the employer’s de minimis argument regarding the 35–45 seconds typically spent by shift supervisor escorting coworkers to their vehicles following the closing of the store. In so doing, that district court noted this activity was clearly listed in the employer’s policies as a routine supervisory duty and, therefore, was not the type of rare or irregular event contemplated by the California Supreme Court as still falling within the state’s de minimis doctrine.

So, although it is unlikely to be a de minimis amount of time before the Court of Appeals rules, Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor this appeal for further developments. Meanwhile, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney(s) with whom you work with questions about this or any other wage and hour issues.

©2019 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 13, 2019

California Supreme Court Rejects Claim for Unpaid Wages under PAGA

September 13, 2019

Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019). This is surprising, as the Court provided... Read More

September 13, 2019

California Worker Misclassification Bill Closer to Enactment

September 13, 2019

The California Assembly has passed a bill that would require workers to be classified as employees if the employer exerts control over how the workers perform their tasks or if their work is part of the employer’s regular business. Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) passed by a vote of 61-16 in the Assembly. Governor Gavin Newsom has stated his... Read More

September 9, 2019

Non-Agricultural Employers May Use Workweek Averaging to Satisfy State Minimum Wage Obligations in Washington

September 9, 2019

The Washington Supreme Court has confirmed that non-agricultural employers may use a workweek averaging methodology to satisfy the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Sampson et al. v. Knight Transportation Inc. et al., No. 96264-2 (Sept. 5, 2019). In other words, non-agricultural employers can satisfy their state minimum wage... Read More

Related Practices