Wage Issue Before California Supreme Court

Decades ago, the United States Supreme Court adopted a “de minimis rule” for lawsuits seeking compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for “negligible” time worked. The California Supreme Court has not yet passed on the applicability of this doctrine to California wage claims, but it has now agreed to do so in Troester v. Starbucks Corp. Meanwhile a Ninth Circuit panel in Troester indicated that the de minimis rule constitutes a federal standard that is potentially at odds with California labor laws, a premise that suffers from at least two flaws.

First, there is little reason to think the de minimis rule is a federal doctrine rather than a generally applicable standard. Although the United States Supreme Court first recognized this rule in an FLSA lawsuit, the Court did so for reasons not tied specifically to the FLSA.

Second, even assuming the de minimis rule stemmed from a standard specific to the FLSA, there is every reason to think California courts would, through parallel reasoning, apply the rule to California claims. Federal law has frequently guided California courts’ interpretation of state labor provisions where state law parallels federal law.

Additionally, the California legislature’s decision not to modify the statutory scheme for state wage claims to abrogate the de minimis rule in light of the California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s long-standing administrative practice adopting the rule is a strong reason for courts to follow the DLSE’s lead.