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.