Did Starbucks Have to Pay for a Few Minutes of Off-the-Clock Work?

A California Supreme Court decision involving routine store-closing tasks clarified that employers generally cannot avoid paying for regularly occurring off-the-clock work by labeling the time as too short to count.

Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (Cal. 2018)

Court: Supreme Court of California

Case/Docket No.: S234969

Where the Troester v. Starbucks Case Started:

The dispute began when Douglas Troester sued Starbucks on behalf of himself and a putative class of nonmanagerial California employees who performed store-closing work during the relevant period. Troester worked as a shift supervisor, and the California Supreme Court explained that he alleged Starbucks required him to clock out before completing the store’s computerized closing procedure and other closing tasks. Starbucks then removed the case to federal court and argued that the uncompensated time was so small that the law did not require payment.

Was the Unpaid Work More than an Occasional Stray Moment?

The Court described the unpaid work as more than an occasional stray moment. Troester presented evidence that, after clocking out, he had to transmit store sales, profit-and-loss, and inventory data to Starbucks headquarters, activate the alarm, exit the store, lock the door, and walk coworkers to their cars, as required by company policy. He also sometimes had to reopen the store so employees could retrieve forgotten items, wait with them for rides, or bring in patio furniture left outside. According to the opinion, these tasks generally took about 4 to 10 additional minutes per day, and over roughly 17 months, the unpaid time totaled about 12 hours and 50 minutes.

The Legal Problem That Caused the Case to Proceed to the California Supreme Court

The central legal issue was whether California law recognizes the same de minimis doctrine used in federal wage-and-hour cases under the FLSA. Under federal law, courts have sometimes excused compensation for very small amounts of time when recording it is administratively difficult. The district court applied that doctrine, concluded Troester’s unpaid time was de minimis, and granted summary judgment to Starbucks.

Troester v. Starbucks On Appeal: The Ninth Circuit

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court because California wage law often diverges from federal law and can provide broader employee protections. That made the issue important beyond Troester’s individual dispute: the answer would determine whether California employers could rely on the federal de minimis doctrine to defend unpaid-wage claims under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197.

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Troester v. Starbucks

The California Supreme Court answered the certified question in Troester’s favor. It held that the relevant California statutes and wage order had not incorporated the federal de minimis doctrine. The Court pointed to the language requiring payment for “all hours worked” and “[a]ny work” beyond statutory thresholds, and it found no convincing evidence that the Legislature or the Industrial Welfare Commission intended to import the less protective federal rule.

Should California's De Minimis Principle Still Apply?

The Court then addressed whether some broader California de minimis principle should still apply as a background matter of state law. It declined to decide whether there could ever be a wage claim involving time so irregular or brief that compensation would be unreasonable to require. But on the facts before it, the Court held the doctrine did not apply. Starbucks had allegedly required Troester to work several minutes off the clock on a regular basis, and California’s wage-and-hour scheme, the Court said, is a system that “does care for small things.”

A Significant Precedent Set Regarding Off-the-Clock Work:

The precedent set by Troester is significant: California employers may not routinely require employees to perform several minutes of off-the-clock work and then avoid paying for that time by invoking the federal de minimis doctrine. The Court also emphasized that employers are better positioned than workers to address practical timekeeping difficulties through restructuring, technology, estimation methods, or lawful rounding practices.

Why Does the Decision in Troester v. Starbucks Matter?

This case matters because it closed off a defense that employers often raised when unpaid work happened in short increments rather than in large blocks. After Troester, the fact that uncompensated work takes only a few minutes per shift does not automatically make it noncompensable under California law, especially when the work is a regular feature of the job. It also matters because the opinion reinforces a broader theme in California employment law: state wage-and-hour protections are often interpreted more expansively than their federal counterparts. The Court relied on the remedial purpose of California wage law, its requirement that employees be paid for all hours worked, and the reality that even modest daily losses can accumulate into meaningful losses over time for hourly workers.

For current and future litigants, Troester is especially useful in cases involving required closing tasks, post-shift duties, security procedures, or other recurring work performed after an employee has clocked out. It gives workers a strong precedent against the argument that regularly required unpaid minutes are too trivial to count.

FAQ About the Troester Off-the-Clock Case and California’s De Minimis Rule

Q: What was the main issue in Troester v. Starbucks Corp.?

A: The main issue was whether California employers can rely on the federal de minimis doctrine to avoid paying employees for small amounts of regularly occurring off-the-clock work.

Q: What kind of unpaid work was involved in the case?

A: Troester alleged that after clocking out, he still had to complete store-closing duties such as transmitting store data, setting the alarm, locking the door, and walking coworkers to their cars. On some occasions, he also had to reopen the store for employees or bring in patio furniture.

Q: How much unpaid time was at issue?

A: According to the opinion, the closing tasks usually took about four to ten minutes per shift, and over roughly 17 months, the total unpaid time amounted to about 12 hours and 50 minutes.

Q: Did the California Supreme Court adopt the federal de minimis doctrine?

A: No. The Court held that California’s relevant statutes and wage order did not adopt the FLSA’s de minimis doctrine.

Q: Did the Court say a California de minimis rule can never apply in a wage case?

A: Not exactly. The Court left open the possibility that there could be cases involving time so irregular or so brief that compensation might not reasonably be required, but it held that the doctrine did not apply under the facts presented in Troester.

Q: Why did the Court reject the doctrine here?

A: The Court emphasized that California wage law requires payment for all hours worked, is meant to be construed liberally to protect employees, and is concerned even with relatively small amounts of work time when those minutes are a regular part of the job.

Q: What did the Court say employers should do instead of relying on de minimis arguments?

A: The Court noted that employers are often in a better position than employees to solve recordkeeping problems by restructuring work, using technology, reasonably estimating time, or adopting lawful rounding practices.

Q: Why is Troester still important today?

A: It remains a key California precedent in off-the-clock cases because it limits a common employer defense and strengthens claims involving recurring unpaid work performed before or after a shift.

California wage-and-hour law does not treat regularly required off-the-clock work as a meaningless technicality simply because each instance lasts only a few minutes. When those minutes are part of the job, they may still be compensable under state law. If you believe your employer required you to perform unpaid work before clocking in, after clocking out, or during other uncompensated parts of your day, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can evaluate whether your rights may have been violated under California employment law.

Did Dynamex Misclassify Delivery Drivers Under California Law?

A California Supreme Court decision arising from a delivery-driver misclassification dispute reshaped how courts analyze who qualifies as an employee under California wage orders.

Case: Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. 2018)

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court / California Supreme Court

Case/Docket No.: BC332016 / S222732

Overview of the Original Dynamex Operations West Employment Law Case:

The case began after Dynamex delivery drivers alleged they had been reclassified as independent contractors even though they were still performing essentially the same pickup-and-delivery work they had done when the company treated them as employees. The Supreme Court explained that Dynamex had classified drivers as employees before 2004, then switched to an independent-contractor model after concluding the change would create economic savings. Under the new arrangement, drivers were expected to provide their own vehicles and cover expenses such as fuel, tolls, maintenance, insurance, taxes, and workers’ compensation.

Alleged Violations of California Wage Order No. 9:

According to the opinion, the drivers claimed that this change was more than a label swap. They alleged that Dynamex’s decision to classify them as independent contractors violated California Wage Order No. 9, the Labor Code, and California’s unfair competition law. The complaint asserted claims tied to unpaid overtime, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and unlawful business practices.

Factors Considered When Determining “Classification” of Workers:

The Court also described several features of the working relationship that made the dispute significant. Dynamex obtained customers, set customer rates, assigned deliveries through its dispatchers, tracked packages, and retained authority over the number and type of deliveries offered to drivers. Some drivers were expected to wear Dynamex shirts and badges, and others were required to place company or customer decals on their vehicles during deliveries. Although drivers had some flexibility in setting schedules and routes, the larger business structure remained centered on Dynamex’s delivery operation.

The Legal Problem That Caused the Case to Proceed to the California Supreme Court

The main legal problem was not simply whether the drivers won or lost on the facts. The real issue was which legal test California courts should use when deciding whether workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of California wage orders. Dynamex argued that courts should rely on the more flexible, multifactor standard set forth in Borello. The drivers argued that the wage-order definitions discussed in Martinez v. Combs also applied and offered a broader basis for finding employment status.

Certified Class Based on Wage-Order Definitions:

That disagreement mattered because the trial court certified a class based on the wage-order definitions of “employ” and “employer,” rather than limiting the analysis to the traditional Borello framework. Dynamex challenged that ruling, first by filing a motion to decertify and then by filing a writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal largely agreed with the trial court on the wage-order claims, and the California Supreme Court took the case to decide whether the wage-order “suffer or permit to work” standard could be used to determine employee-versus-independent-contractor status in this setting.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Deciding Whether a Worker is an Employee or Independent Contractor

The California Supreme Court agreed that the wage-order definition could be used and held that the “suffer or permit to work” standard applies when deciding whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of the obligations imposed by a California wage order. The Court rejected the argument that this standard should be confined to joint-employer situations. From there, the Court adopted the now-famous ABC test for wage-order claims. Under that test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the hiring entity proves all three of the following:

A. The worker is free from the hiring entity’s control and direction in performing the work, both under the contract and in practice;

B. The worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

C. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

The Court emphasized that if the hiring business fails to prove even one of those three elements, the worker is treated as an employee for purposes of the wage order. It also affirmed the judgment below, concluding that the class certification ruling could stand because the drivers’ claims were sufficiently capable of classwide resolution under the proper understanding of the wage-order standard.

Definitions According to Dynamex: Why Does it Matter?

This case became one of the most important California employment decisions of the last decade because it changed the framework for wage-order misclassification cases. Instead of leaving parties to battle primarily over a loose, totality-of-the-circumstances test, the Court adopted a cleaner and more demanding rule that places the burden on the hiring entity.

That matters in practical terms. Businesses that rely on workers to perform functions at the heart of their operations face a much harder road when trying to classify those workers as independent contractors. For workers, the decision created a more predictable path for challenging misclassification in cases involving overtime, minimum wage protections, meal and rest break obligations, and wage-statement issues under California wage orders. The Court also made clear that wage orders are meant to protect workers, support fair competition, and prevent employers from gaining an edge by using arrangements that strip workers of basic labor protections.

For present-day litigants, Dynamex remains a foundational precedent because it is often the starting point in any California dispute over whether a worker was wrongly treated as an independent contractor under wage-order law.

FAQ About the Dynamex Misclassification Case and the ABC Test

Q: What was the main issue in Dynamex?

A: The core issue was whether Dynamex delivery drivers were properly classified as independent contractors or whether they should have been treated as employees under California wage orders.

Q: Why were the drivers upset with the reclassification?

A: They alleged that after Dynamex changed their status, they were still doing the same work but lost protections associated with employee status, including overtime-related protections and other rights tied to wage-order coverage.

Q: What is the ABC test?

A: It is the three-part test the California Supreme Court adopted in Dynamex for wage-order claims. A hiring entity must prove freedom from control, work outside the usual course of the business, and that the worker is customarily engaged in an independent business of the same nature.

Q: Does a company win if it proves only one or two parts of the ABC test?

A: No. The hiring entity must prove all three parts. If it fails to prove any one of them, the worker is treated as an employee for purposes of the wage order.

Q: Why was part B of the ABC test so important in this case?

A: Because Dynamex was a delivery company, the drivers’ pickup-and-delivery work appeared closely tied to the company’s usual course of business. That made the classification question especially suitable for classwide treatment.

Q: Did the Supreme Court decide every claim in the case under the same standard?

A: No. The Court’s review focused on wage-order-based claims. The opinion noted that the Court of Appeals had treated reimbursement claims under Labor Code section 2802 differently for certification purposes.

Q: Why is Dynamex still important today?

A: Because it remains one of the leading California cases on worker misclassification. Lawyers, workers, and courts still rely on it when evaluating whether a company can lawfully classify someone as an independent contractor for wage-order purposes.

Q: Did the Court say every independent contractor is really an employee?

A: No. The Court expressly said the wage-order standard should not be read so literally as to sweep in traditional independent contractors, such as plumbers or electricians, who operate their own businesses.

Worker-classification disputes can affect far more than job titles. In California, they may shape whether workers are entitled to overtime, wage statements, reimbursement protections, and other basic safeguards under state labor law. If you believe you were classified as an independent contractor even though your work was part of a company’s regular business operations, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can assess whether your rights may have been violated under California employment law.

Can Amazon Be Held Liable After Families Allege It Sold a “Suicide Kit” Through Its Platform?

Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. is a closely watched wrongful death and product-liability case that considers whether Amazon can face negligence claims after four people died by suicide using high-purity sodium nitrite purchased through the major online retailer’s website. In February 2026, the Washington Supreme Court held that suicide is not automatically a superseding cause at the pleading stage and allowed the families’ product-seller negligence claims under Washington law to move forward.

Case: Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Court: Washington State Supreme Court

Case No. 103730-9

Family Members Filed a Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Amazon:

The plaintiffs are family members and personal representatives of the estates of four decedents: Mikael Scott, Tyler Muhleman, Demetrios Viglis, and Ava Passannanti. The opinion identifies Ruth Scott, Jeff Muhleman, Cindy Cruz, Mary Ellen Viglis, James Passannanti, and Annette Gallego as the petitioners who brought the lawsuits on their own behalf and on behalf of the estates. According to the court, the underlying suits were filed after each decedent purchased high-purity sodium nitrite through Amazon’s website and later died from sodium nitrite poisoning. The plaintiffs allege Amazon’s sales and recommendation practices increased the risk of harm and contributed to the deaths.

The Defendant in the Wrongful Death Case is Amazon

The defendant is Amazon.com, Inc. The Washington Supreme Court opinion describes Amazon as the online seller through whose website the decedents purchased the sodium nitrite products at issue, specifically Loudwolf Sodium Nitrite and HiMedia GRM417-500G Sodium Nitrite. The plaintiffs allege Amazon continued selling high-purity sodium nitrite without age verification or adequate warnings, and recommended related products that could facilitate suicide.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc.

The plaintiffs alleged Amazon sold 98.0 to 99.6 percent pure sodium nitrite on its platform even though, according to the complaints, there was no legitimate household use for such high-purity sodium nitrite, and Amazon knew it was being used in suicides. They also alleged Amazon recommended related products such as Tagamet, small scales, and The Peaceful Pill Handbook, and sent reminder emails tied to those products, effectively helping create what critics described as a “suicide kit.” The complaints further alleged Amazon had been warned through parents, consumer reports, poison data trends, and a March 17, 2021, FDA letter that the product had been used for suicide, yet it continued to allow sales through other brands. The plaintiffs also contended the warnings shown to consumers were inadequate because the labels did not properly disclose the product’s lethality or explain how to reverse its effects if ingested.

Define Superseding Cause: A superseding cause is an event so significant that it breaks the legal chain between a defendant’s conduct and the harm that followed. In this case, the key issue was whether suicide always cuts off liability as a matter of law in a negligence-based product liability claim.

What Is Product Seller Negligence? Product seller negligence is a claim that a company that sells a product acted carelessly in a way that caused harm, even if it did not manufacture the product. Here, the Washington Supreme Court held the families had pleaded enough facts to pursue negligence claims against Amazon under the Washington Product Liability Act.

Considering the Main Question in the Case:

The central question in Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. was whether suicide automatically bars a negligence claim by acting as a superseding cause under Washington law. Amazon argued the decedents’ suicides broke the chain of causation and therefore prevented recovery as a matter of law. The Washington Supreme Court rejected that broad rule at the motion-to-dismiss stage, explaining that foreseeability and proximate cause are generally questions for the fact finder and that the plaintiffs had alleged enough to proceed. The decision means the families may continue litigating whether Amazon’s sales, recommendations, and warning practices negligently increased the risk of the very harm that occurred.

FAQ: Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Q: What is Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. about?

A: It is a Washington wrongful death and product liability case brought by the families of four people who died by suicide after ingesting high purity sodium nitrite purchased through Amazon’s website. The plaintiffs allege Amazon negligently sold and promoted the product despite knowing it was being used for suicide.

Q: What did the Washington Supreme Court decide?

A: The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s denial of Amazon’s motions to dismiss. It held that suicide is not always a superseding cause as a matter of law at the pleading stage and that the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to state a negligence claim under the Washington Product Liability Act.

Q: What products were involved in the case?

A: The opinion identifies two sodium nitrite products sold through Amazon’s website: Loudwolf Sodium Nitrite and HiMedia GRM417-500G Sodium Nitrite. The court noted allegations that these products were 98.0% to 99.6% pure.

Q: Why did the families say Amazon should have foreseen the danger?

A: The plaintiffs alleged Amazon had been warned through grieving parents, one-star reviews, poison data trends, regulatory alerts, and an FDA letter that sodium nitrite sold through the platform was being used in suicides. They also alleged Amazon recommended companion products associated with suicide methods and continued sales after those warnings.

Q: Does this ruling mean Amazon is liable?

A: No. The ruling does not decide liability. It only means the plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently pleaded to survive dismissal and move forward.

Q: Why might this case matter beyond Washington?

A: The decision is significant because it rejects a categorical rule that suicide always ends proximate cause analysis at the outset of a case. That could influence how courts and litigants think about platform liability, product warnings, and foreseeability when online product suggestion algorithms allegedly contribute to dangerous conduct.

If you have questions about wrongful death, product liability, or whether a company’s conduct may have contributed to a preventable death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn more about your legal options.

Was Randolph’s California Employment Case Properly Dismissed Under the Five-and-a-Half-Year Rule?

Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University is a California employment law case that turned less on the underlying discrimination claims and more on a strict procedural deadline. The 2026 decision of the California Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of Teresa Randolph’s case; it found that the record did not show a valid oral agreement to extend the statutory deadline to bring the action to trial.

Case: Randolph v. Trustees of the Cal. State Univ.

Court: California Court of Appeal

Case No. Super. Ct. No. 19CV01226

Who Is the Plaintiff in the Case?

The plaintiff is Teresa Randolph, a former employee of California State University, Chico. According to the appellate opinion, she filed suit against her prior employer and other defendants on April 19, 2019, asserting claims of employment discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and termination of her employment. The opinion does not resolve whether those underlying employment allegations were true, because the appeal focused on whether the case was brought to trial in a timely manner. As a result, the published decision addresses whether her lawsuit could proceed after missing the governing trial deadline.

Who Is the Defendant in the Case?

The lead defendant is the Trustees of California State University. The opinion states that Randolph sued her prior employer and several others (collectively, the defendants). During the trial court proceedings, the defendants moved to dismiss the case after the trial date was set beyond the statutory deadline for bringing the action to trial, arguing that no exception applied and that the action therefore had to be dismissed under California’s mandatory dismissal rules.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Randolph v. Trustees of the Cal. State Univ.

Randolph’s underlying lawsuit involved employment discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination-related claims arising from her prior employment at California State University, Chico. The appellate dispute, however, was procedural. Randolph argued the parties had effectively agreed in open court to a February 3, 2025, trial date, even though the statutory deadline to bring the case to trial was October 19, 2024. The defendants responded that there was no valid stipulation extending the deadline because the minute order did not reflect any such agreement, and no transcript of the hearing was included in the appellate record. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

What Is Mandatory Dismissal? This means the court must dismiss a case if it is not brought to trial within the time required by law, unless a recognized exception applies. In Randolph’s case, the Court of Appeal held that dismissal was required because the statutory deadline had expired and the claimed exception was not established in the record.

What Is an Oral Stipulation Made in Open Court? Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.330, parties can extend the deadline to bring a case to trial by oral agreement in open court, but only if that agreement is entered in the court’s minutes or preserved in a transcript. The appellate court held that the requirement was not satisfied here.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

The central question on appeal was whether the parties entered into a valid oral agreement extending the deadline to bring Randolph’s case to trial. Randolph argued that both sides agreed to the February 2025 trial date at the March 27, 2024, case management conference and that this was enough to avoid mandatory dismissal. The Court of Appeal disagreed, explaining that section 583.330 requires the oral agreement to appear in the court minutes or in a transcript, and the record contained neither. Because the minute order showed only that the trial date was set, without reflecting mutual assent to extend the deadline, the dismissal stood.

FAQ: Randolph v. Trustees of the Cal. State Univ.

Q: What Was Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University About?

A: The underlying lawsuit involved employment discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and termination-related claims by a former California State University, Chico employee. The appellate decision, however, focused on whether the case was properly dismissed for not being brought to trial within the statutory deadline.

Q: Why Was Randolph’s Case Dismissed?

A: The case was dismissed because it was not brought to trial within the five-year deadline, as extended by six months under Judicial Council emergency rule 10 during the COVID-19 period. The Court of Appeal held that no valid statutory exception was shown in the record.

Q: What Was the Deadline to Bring the Case to Trial?

A: The Court of Appeal said Randolph filed suit on April 19, 2019, and that the five-year-plus-six-month deadline to bring the action to trial was October 19, 2024. The trial court later set the trial for February 3, 2025, which was beyond that deadline.

Q: Why Didn’t the February 2025 Trial Date Count as an Agreed Extension?

A: The appellate court said an oral agreement to extend the deadline must be reflected in the minutes of the court or preserved in a transcript. Here, the minute order simply listed the dates that were set and did not record any oral stipulation, and there was no reporter’s transcript in the record.

Q: What Did the Court of Appeal Decide?

A: The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal. It held that the oral-agreement exception in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.330, subdivision (b), did not apply because the record lacked the documentation required by the statute.

Q: Why Does This Case Matter in California Employment Litigation?

A: This case is a reminder that even serious workplace claims can be lost on procedural grounds if statutory deadlines are missed. For both employees and employers, it underscores the importance of preserving any trial-deadline extension in a written stipulation, a minute order that clearly reflects the agreement, or a transcript.

If you have questions about employment discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, or procedural issues that may affect your right to pursue a California employment case, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Can California Workers Bring a “Headless” PAGA Claim to Avoid Arbitration?

In Leeper v. Shipt, a California worker filed a PAGA lawsuit seeking penalties on behalf of himself and other employees (while disclaiming any individual PAGA claim in an attempt to avoid arbitration). However, the Court of Appeal didn’t accept the argument, and as of March 2026, the California Supreme Court is still reviewing the question presented in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.

Case: Leeper v. Shipt

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No. 24STCV06485

Do You Know the Plaintiff in the Case?

​The plaintiff is Christina Leeper. According to the published Court of Appeal opinion, she entered into an independent contractor agreement with Shipt on March 19, 2019, to provide services as a Shipt shopper. Leeper filed an employment law complaint alleging Shipt misclassified her and other workers as independent contractors and thereby violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code. She filed the Los Angeles County Superior Court action on March 14, 2024, styling it as a representative PAGA complaint seeking non-individual penalties and related relief.

​Do You Know the Defendant in the Case?

Shipt, Inc. and its parent company, Target Corporation, are listed as the defendants in the case. The Court of Appeal opinion describes Shipt as an online ordering platform whose members arrange for Shipt shoppers to purchase and deliver goods from local merchants. The opinion also states that Leeper’s agreement included an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration, and that the agreement applied to Shipt and certain related entities, including parents. At this stage of the broader Supreme Court review, the dispute is less about the underlying worker-classification allegations and more about how PAGA claims interact with arbitration agreements under California law.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Leeper v. Shipt

Leeper’s complaint alleged Shipt misclassified her and similarly situated workers as independent contractors in violation of the Labor Code. The procedural dispute that made this case significant, however, is narrower: she pleaded only a single count for non-individual PAGA penalties and expressly alleged that she was bringing the case on a representative, non-individual basis. Shipt moved to compel arbitration of the individual portion of the PAGA action, while Leeper argued there was no individual claim to arbitrate because none had been pleaded. The trial court agreed with Leeper, but the Court of Appeal reversed and held that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA claim.

Learn More About PAGA: PAGA is short for the Private Attorneys General Act. In simple terms, it allows an aggrieved employee to step into the shoes of the state and seek civil penalties for Labor Code violations affecting themselves and other employees.

What Is a Headless PAGA Claim? A “headless” PAGA claim is shorthand for a lawsuit that tries to pursue only non-individual or representative PAGA penalties for other workers, while disclaiming the plaintiff’s own individual PAGA claim. That is the core issue now under review in Leeper.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

The main question in Leeper v. Shipt is whether every PAGA case automatically includes both an individual component and a representative component, even if the complaint tries to plead only representative relief. The Court of Appeal answered yes, relying on Labor Code section 2699’s language authorizing an aggrieved employee to sue “on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees.” Because of that reading, the appellate court held Leeper’s individual PAGA claim had to be sent to arbitration and the representative portion stayed. The California Supreme Court is now reviewing whether California law permits a plaintiff to bring only a non-individual PAGA action and thereby avoid arbitration of an individual claim.

FAQ: Leeper v. Shipt

Q: What Is the Procedural Question Asked by Leeper v. Shipt?

A: Leeper v. Shipt is a California PAGA and arbitration case about whether a worker can file a representative-only, or “headless,” PAGA lawsuit without including an individual PAGA claim.

Q: What Is the Purpose of a PAGA Claim?

A: The PAGA claim’s primary purpose is to ensure, enforce, and deter unlawful business and labor practices in California, with civil penalties often distributed between the state and employees.​

Q: Why Did the Court of Appeal Reverse the Trial Court’s Decision in Leeper v. Shipt?

A: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and held that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA claim. It directed the lower court to compel arbitration of Leeper’s individual PAGA claim and stay litigation of the representative portion.

Q: What Makes Leeper v. Shipt Significant for California Workers?

A: The case could significantly shape how employers and employees handle arbitration agreements in PAGA litigation across California, particularly in cases where workers are classified as independent contractors.

Q: What Does “Stay the Representative Claim” Mean?

A: “Staying the representative claim” means the court pauses proceedings on the representative portion while the arbitrable individual portion goes forward in arbitration. The Court of Appeal said California’s procedural rules require that kind of stay once arbitration has been ordered on an issue involved in the pending action.

Q: How Does California Labor Law Define an Independent Contractor?

A: According to California labor law, an independent contractor is a worker who is free from the hiring entity's control, performs work outside the company's normal business, and operates an independently established business. California strictly applies the "ABC test," presuming workers are employees unless all three factors of the standard test are met.

If you have questions about PAGA claims, arbitration agreements, worker misclassification, or other California employment law issues that may affect your right to seek penalties for Labor Code violations, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did Simple Container Solutions Fail to Pay Employees All Wages Due Under California Law?

A Los Angeles wage and hour class action alleges that Simple Container Solutions engaged in pay practices that violate California labor law, leaving employees with unpaid wages, missed meal breaks and rest periods, and unreimbursed business expenses.

Case: Pascual v. Simple Container Solutions and Insulated Products Corporation

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No. 24STCV07955

Who Is the Plaintiff in the Case?

The plaintiff is Pascual, an individual who filed the action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees in a proposed class action. The case, Pascual v. Simple Container Solutions, LLC, et al., was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court as Case No. 24STCV07955 on March 27, 2024. The lawsuit was brought as a representative action for workers who allegedly experienced similar wage and hour violations while working for the defendants.

Who Is the Defendant in the Case?

The lawsuit names Simple Container Solutions, LLC and Insulated Products Corporation as defendants. The complaint alleges both companies violated California wage and hour law by failing to pay employees for all time worked and engaged in allegedly unlawful pay and break practices. At this stage, these are allegations in a pending civil case, not findings made by the court.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Pascual v. Simple Container Solutions

The plaintiffs claim their employer failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay wages when due. Employees were allegedly required to perform work before and after scheduled shifts and during off-duty meal breaks without compensation for all time under the employer’s control. Plaintiffs in the case were also concerned about recordkeeping failures and final pay issues upon discharge or resignation from the company. The case remains pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

What Is Off-the-Clock Work? This means work an employee performs without having that time properly recorded and paid. In this case, workers were allegedly required to perform work before and after scheduled shifts and during meal breaks without compensation for all time worked.

What Is an Itemized Wage Statement? This is the pay stub or wage statement California employers are generally required to provide to employees, showing information such as hours worked and wages earned. The lawsuit alleges the defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

The main question in this case is whether Simple Container Solutions and Insulated Products Corporation complied with California wage and hour law when paying non-exempt employees. More specifically, the lawsuit challenges whether workers were paid for all hours worked, including time allegedly spent working before shifts, after shifts, and during meal periods. It also raises the issue of whether employees were provided legally compliant meal and rest breaks and whether wage statements and reimbursements satisfied California legal requirements. In practical terms, the case asks whether the employers’ policies or payroll practices shifted unpaid labor costs and necessary business expenses onto employees.

FAQ: Pascual v. Simple Container Solutions

Q: What Is the Simple Container Solutions Lawsuit About?

A: The lawsuit alleges Simple Container Solutions, LLC and Insulated Products Corporation violated California labor law by failing to pay employees all wages due. The claims include alleged minimum wage violations, overtime violations, meal and rest break violations, inaccurate wage statement violations, unreimbursed business expense violations, and late final wage payment violations.

Q: What Is the Case Name and Number?

A: The case is Pascual v. Simple Container Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 24STCV07955, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 27, 2024.

Q: What Is a Wage and Hour Class Action?

A: A wage and hour class action is a lawsuit in which one or more employees sue on behalf of a larger group of similarly situated workers, alleging that an employer violated laws governing pay, breaks, or working conditions. If successful, any recovery may extend to all class members, not just the named plaintiff.

Q: What Does “Failure to Pay All Wages Due” Mean in a California Employment Case?

A: It generally means employees claim they were not paid everything California law required for the work they performed. Here, the allegations include unpaid time worked off the clock, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and unpaid wages allegedly owed when employment ended.

Q: What Does “Off-the-Clock Work” Mean in a California Wage and Hour Case?

A: Off-the-clock work refers to time an employee spends performing work-related duties without being paid for that time. California law generally requires employers to pay non-exempt employees for all hours worked and under the employer’s control. This lawsuit alleges workers were required to perform tasks before and after scheduled shifts and during meal breaks without receiving compensation for that time.

Q: Why Is This Case Relevant to a California Wage and Hour Audience?

A: This case touches several issues that commonly appear in California employment litigation, including unpaid wages, off-the-clock work, break violations, reimbursement claims, and pay stub accuracy. For workers, it is a reminder that legal compliance is about more than an hourly rate; it also depends on whether every hour worked, every required break, and every reimbursable expense is handled correctly.

​If you have questions about unpaid wages, missed meal or rest breaks, unreimbursed business expenses, inaccurate wage statements, or other California wage and hour violations, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did BestDrive and Related Continental Entities Deny California Workers Meal Breaks and Full Pay?

A California wage and hour lawsuit alleges BestDrive, LLC and related Continental entities failed to pay employees all wages due and denied workers legally required meal and rest breaks.

Case: Chrissy Cleveland v. BestDrive, LLC, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Continental Tire The Americas, LLC, ContiTech North America, Inc. and ContiTech USA, Inc. (BestDrive, Continental Tire and ContiTech)

Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

Case No. CIVSB2312594

Who Is the Plaintiff in the Case?

Chrissy Cleveland, plaintiff, filed the employment law action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former California employees. Cleveland alleges she worked for the defendants at their California location from March 2020 through June 2022 as a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis, meaning she was entitled to meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, and overtime pay for all hours worked.

Who Is the Defendant in the Case?

The complaint names BestDrive, LLC, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, ContiTech North America, Inc., and ContiTech USA, Inc. as defendants. It alleges that each entity conducted substantial and regular business in California and that they acted as joint employers of the plaintiff, Cleveland. The pleading also states that the defendants owned, operated, and/or managed tire centers throughout California, including in San Bernardino County, where the plaintiff worked. At this stage, those are allegations from the complaint and not findings the court has made.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Cleveland v. BestDrive

The complaint alleges the defendants required employees to work without paying them for all time under the employer’s control, including work performed during what should have been off-duty meal breaks. It also claims that workers were sometimes unable to take timely, compliant meal periods or uninterrupted rest breaks due to scheduling and staffing practices, and that employees were not always paid premium wages when breaks were missed. In addition, the pleading includes claims for unpaid minimum, overtime, and double-time wages, inaccurate itemized wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses related to personal cell phone and vehicle use, and alleged failures involving sick pay and paid sick leave balance information.

What Is “Off-the-Clock” Work? This means job-related work an employee allegedly performed without having that time properly recorded and paid. In this complaint, that includes allegations that workers had to keep working during what should have been off-duty meal periods.

What Is a Joint Employer? A joint employer theory means that more than one company may be legally responsible for the same worker’s wages, hours, or working conditions. Here, the complaint alleges BestDrive and the related Continental entities jointly employed the plaintiff and other non-exempt workers.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

The main question in the case is whether BestDrive and the related Continental entities complied with California wage and hour laws for their non-exempt employees. More specifically, the complaint challenges whether workers were denied legally compliant meal and rest periods and whether they were required to perform unpaid work during meal breaks or at other times without full compensation. The lawsuit also raises the connected issue of whether pay practices, wage statements, and reimbursements accurately reflected what California law required. At bottom, the case asks whether the defendants’ workplace policies shifted time and expense costs onto employees in a way California labor law prohibits.

FAQ: Cleveland v. BestDrive

Q: What Is the BestDrive Wage and Hour Lawsuit About?

A: The lawsuit alleges California non-exempt employees were denied legally compliant meal and rest breaks and were not paid all wages due. The complaint also includes claims involving off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime and minimum wages, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed expenses, and paid sick leave violations.

Q: What Is the Case Name and Number?

A: The case is Cleveland v. BestDrive, LLC, et al., Case No. CIVSB2312594, filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

Q: What Is Joint Employer Liability and Why Does It Matter Here?

A: Joint employer liability means more than one company can be held legally responsible for wage and hour violations if both exercised sufficient control over the terms and conditions of employment. In this case, the lawsuit names BestDrive, LLC and related Continental entities as joint employers, alleging all were responsible for the pay practices and workplace policies at issue.

Q: What Does It Mean When a Meal Break Is Not “Legally Compliant” in California?

A: In general, California law requires non-exempt employees to receive timely off-duty meal periods where they are relieved of work duties. This complaint alleges workers were sometimes required to work through meal periods, did not receive meal breaks before the fifth hour of work, or were not provided second meal periods on longer shifts.

Q: Why Are Personal Vehicle and Cell Phone Expenses Part of the Lawsuit?

A: California law can require employers to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses. In this case, the complaint alleges employees were not fully reimbursed for personal cell phone and vehicle costs incurred in furtherance of their work.

Q: Why Does This Case Matter for California Employment Law?

A: This lawsuit touches several issues that frequently appear in California employment litigation, including unpaid wages, meal and rest break violations, wage statement errors, reimbursement claims, and waiting time penalties. For employees, the case is a reminder that compliance is not just about an hourly rate; it also depends on whether every required break, premium payment, and reimbursement was actually provided.

If you have questions about unpaid wages, missed meal or rest breaks, unreimbursed business expenses, inaccurate wage statements, or other California wage and hour violations, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.