Alleged Failure to Offer Employee Breaks: Did Starbucks Violate Labor Law?

A California worker filed a PAGA-only action alleging that Starbucks engaged in labor code violations.

The Case: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.:25CV121089

The Plaintiff: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The plaintiff, Sarah Verduzco, was employed at a California Starbucks location from 2014 to December of 2024. Verduzco claims that due to standard operating procedures in place at the coffee shop, employees worked off the clock and were not paid full wages. According to the applicable California Wage Order, employers are required to provide employees with off-duty rest periods. The plaintiff filed a PAGA-only suit seeking penalties for the alleged violations; doing so allows the State of California to enforce state labor laws through the employee. By filing under PAGA, the employee acts as a proxy for the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. Seeking civil penalties under PAGA is essentially a law enforcement action intended to protect the public rather than benefit private parties. Instead of seeking to recover damages or restitution, parties filing a PAGA-only action seek to act as a “deputized” private attorney general and enforce the labor code.

The Defendant: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The Defendant, Starbucks Corporation, is the owner/operator of coffee shops throughout California (and the rest of the world). According to the California wage and hour lawsuit, Starbucks allegedly failed to provide its eligible, non-exempt, hourly employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Allegations: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

According to the plaintiff, Starbucks engaged in several day-to-day operating practices that violated labor law and negatively affected their employees, such as:

Off the Clock Work: The plaintiff claims that employees were (from time to time) required to work while they were clocked out on their off-duty meal break.

Shorting Employee Pay: The plaintiff claims that Starbucks’ established company policy and procedure of rounding employees’ actual time worked meant employees received less pay than if the company paid them for the actual hours they worked.

Unpaid Mandatory Covid-19 Checks: As a result of requiring employees to submit to mandatory Covid-19 screenings before clocking in to their work shift, the plaintiff claims employees were subjected to additional off-the-clock hours.

As a result of these combined policies and procedures, the plaintiff alleges that Starbucks violated multiple labor laws protecting minimum wage, overtime pay, employee meal breaks and rest periods, as well as wage and hour standards.

Should Incentive Pay Be Included in the Base Rate of Pay for Overtime Calculations?

In the complaint, the plaintiff also specifically questioned Starbucks’ treatment of employees’ incentive pay when calculating overtime pay. According to Verduzco, Starbucks had a non-discretionary incentive program in place that provided incentive wages to employees based on their performance. All hourly employees were eligible to participate in the incentive program. During the hiring process, management described the incentive program to potential new hires as part of the compensation package. However, when Starbucks determines the regular rate of pay to use in calculations to pinpoint overtime pay rates, and meal/rest break premiums (for missed breaks), the defendant failed to include the incentive wages. According to Verduzco’s complaint, failing to include the incentive wages as part of the “regular rate of pay” is a labor law violation.

FAQ: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

Q: What exactly is a “PAGA-only” lawsuit, and how does it help employees?

A: A PAGA-only action lets a worker act on behalf of California's labor department and sue an employer for civil penalties on the state’s behalf. Unlike a class action (which seeks back wages for each employee and other damages if applicable), a PAGA case seeks penalties meant to deter future labor law violations and protect the public. If the claim succeeds, 75% of the penalties will go to the State of California, while 25% is distributed among the affected employees, still putting money in workers’ pockets while holding the employer publicly accountable.

Q: Do California meal and rest break laws really require that I be completely off the clock?

A: Yes, California law is clear on this issue. Rest periods must be “off-duty,” which means workers are relieved of all work duties and employer control. If your employer calls you back to the register, asks you to prepare drinks, or keeps you “on stand-by” during a break, the time does not count as a lawful rest period, and you are owed premium pay.

Q: My paycheck includes a performance bonus. Should that raise my overtime rate?

A: Yes, it should. When a bonus or incentive is non-discretionary (promised in advance and tied to measurable goals), it must be built into the employee’s “regular rate of pay.” The higher rate then becomes the basis for calculating overtime and missed-break premiums. Excluding incentive pay, as alleged in this case, artificially lowers overtime wages and violates California labor law.

Q: I went through mandatory health screenings before clocking in during COVID-19. Can I claim unpaid wages for that time?

A: Possibly. If the mandatory health screenings were required and you weren’t allowed to clock in first, that waiting time is considered “hours worked.” California law requires you to be paid for all hours your employer controls your activities, including brief pre-shift tasks such as health checks or temperature screenings. You may be entitled to back pay, penalties, and interest for any off-the-clock time.

The Case: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The lawsuit against Starbucks Corporation is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.