“Employers Hold Their Breath as Calif. Supreme Court Reconsiders Off-The-Clock Laws,” The Recorder, April 24, 2018.

On May 1, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the highly anticipated case Troester v. Starbucks Corporation as clouds gathered around the longstanding de minimis doctrine. The case, which is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit, was referred to the California high court by the Ninth Circuit panel so that it could answer a key question — does the de minimis doctrine, traditionally applied in both California and federal Fair Labor Standards Act cases, apply to wage claims made under the California Labor Code?

On March 7, the California Supreme Court, in Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, limited the tort liability of lenders and servicers. This article discusses the California Supreme Court opinion and how it provides a collective sigh of relief to those in the corner of lenders and servicers and how they should continue to tread lightly in the loss mitigation process.

On May 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International Inc., concluding that the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, in which the state’s high court announced a new independent contractor test for California employers, should be applied retroactively. While not a surprise, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling should remind California employers not only of the significant hurdles presented with the new ABC test announced in the Dynamex case, but also of the potential exposure facing employers for misclassification of employees as independent contractors.

The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling in Troester v. Starbucks and offers employers best practices to protect themselves.