300 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 527 (2009) (following Lindow but reversing summary judgment for employer where plaintiff raised evidence that unpaid time was more than de minimis). 98 Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829 (2018). 99 Troester v. Starbucks Corp., No. 14-55530 (9th Cir. June 2, 2016). 100 5 Cal. 5th at 839. 101 Id. at 848. 102 Id. 103 Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Servs., Inc., 928 F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2019) (reversing summary judgment for employer) (“[W]e understand the rule in Troester as mandating compensation where employees are regularly required to work off the clock for more than ‘minute’ or ‘brief’ periods of time.”). 104 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b); DLSE Enforcement and Policies Manual §§ 47.1, 47.2 (2002). 105 See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889, 903 (2012). 106 AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. App. 5th 1014, 1027-28 (2018) (granting employer’s petition for writ of mandate and directing trial court to enter an order granting summary adjudication in the employer’s favor); see also Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC, 29 Cal. App. 5th 1068 (2018) (affirming summary judgment for employer because rounding policy was fair and neutral on its face and as applied), rev. granted, No. S253677 (Cal. Mar. 27, 2019). Donohue addressed rounding only with respect to meal periods but noted that the Supreme Court has never endorsed rounding and that one justification for rounding—practicality—may be disappearing in light of modern evolving technological means of recording time. For further discussion of Donohue, see § 7.8. 107 Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cr. 2016). 108 Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 58 (2021). 109 Id. at 73. 110 Id. at 74 (“[The defendant employer here] eventually switched to a new timekeeping system that does not round time punches after this lawsuit was filed. As technology continues to evolve, the practical advantages of rounding policies may diminish further.”). 111 Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 638, 642 (2022). 112 There were two plaintiffs in Camp. The plaintiff who was overpaid due to the employer’s rounding policy abandoned her appeal and the Court of Appeal did not consider whether the rounding policy was lawful as to this employee. 113 See 29 C.F.R. § 516.2(c) (employees working on fixed schedules). 114 Wage Orders § 3. 115 Arechiga v. Press, 192 Cal. App. 4th 567, 574 (2011) (“explicit mutual wage agreements remain valid in California”). 116 Lab. Code § 515(d)(2) (“Payment of a fixed salary to a nonexempt employee shall be deemed to provide compensation only for the employee’s regular, nonovertime hours, notwithstanding any private agreement to the contrary.”). 117 Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 165 Cal. App. 3d 239, 245 (1985). 118 Lab. Code § 515(d) (regular rate for nonexempt salaried employee is 1/40th of weekly salary). 119 It is a crime for a California employer to willfully refuse to pay wages after demand is made or to falsely dispute the demand in order to coerce an agreement to compromise or delay payment. Lab. Code § 216. Gould v. Maryland Sound Indus., Inc., 31 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1147 (1995) (wage payment law reflects fundamental public policy). 120 Lab. Code §§ 201, 202. 121 Lab. Code § 204. 122 Lab. Code § 206.5. 123 Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 42 Cal. 4th 217, 227 (2007). 124 On–Line Power, Inc. v. Mazur, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 1085 (2007). 125 See, e.g., Sciborski v. Pac. Bell Directory, 205 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1166 (2012); Lindell v. Synthes USA, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2016). 126 Lab. Code § 204. 127 Lab. Code § 210. 128 On-Line Power, Inc. v. Mazur, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (2007) (citing Lab. Code § 218.5). See generally Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Grp., 29 Cal. 4th 345, 350 (2002) (employee denied wages may sue both for breach of contract and for violation of Labor Code). 129 Lab. Code § 212. 130 Lab. Code § 213(d). 131 DLSE Opinion Letter 2008.07.07. 132 Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 245 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1261 (2016) (“We understand that the remedy for a section 226.7 violation is an extra hour of pay, but the fact that the remedy is measured by an employee’s hourly wage does not transmute the remedy into a
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4