©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2024 Cal-Peculiarities | 301 92 See, e.g., Boone v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (denying motion to dismiss; holding that the complaint alleged time spent on COVID screening was under the employer’s control and therefore compensable). 93 Huerta v. CSI Elec. Contractors, 15 Cal. 5th 908 (2024). 94 Lab. Code § 226(a); Wage Orders § 7. 95 Lab. Code § 1174(d). 96 Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., 194 Cal. App. 4th 361, 365 (2011) (“We agree with plaintiffs that it is not permissible for Metson to artificially designate the workweek in such a way as to circumvent the statutory requirement to pay overtime rates for the seventh consecutive day worked in a workweek.”). 97 See, e.g., Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984) (approximately 7-8 minutes spent each day, before the shift started, reading log book and exchanging information was de minimis because it was irregular and difficult to monitor). 98 Corbin v. Time Warner, 821 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2016). 99 E.g., Chavez v. Converse, No. 5:15-cv-03546-NC (N.D. Cal. October 11, 2017) (granting summary judgment to employer where average inspections took a few seconds and did not take more than 10 daily minutes in the aggregate, and where there were legitimate business reasons not to place time clocks at the front of the store); Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Servs., Inc., 2017 WL 4005591 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2017) (generally the same). 100 DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual § 47.2.1 (2002) (citing Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984): “In recording working time, insubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, may be disregarded.” See also Gomez v. Lincare, 173 Cal. App. 4th 508, 527 (2009) (following Lindow but reversing summary judgment for employer where plaintiff raised evidence that unpaid time was more than de minimis). 101 Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829 (2018). 102 Troester v. Starbucks Corp., No. 14-55530 (9th Cir. June 2, 2016). 103 Troester, 5 Cal. 5th at 839. 104 Id. at 848. 105 Id. 106 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.”). 107 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b); DLSE Enforcement and Policies Manual §§ 47.1, 47.2 (2002). 108 See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 210 Cal. App. 4th 889, 903 (2012). 109 AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 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), review 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. 110 Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cr. 2016). 111 Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 58 (2021). 112 Id. at 73. 113 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.”). 114 Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 638, 642 (2022). 115 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. 116 See 29 C.F.R. § 516.2(c) (employees working on fixed schedules). 117 Wage Orders § 3. 118 Arechiga v. Press, 192 Cal. App. 4th 567, 574 (2011) (“explicit mutual wage agreements remain valid in California”). 119 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.”). 120 Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 165 Cal. App. 3d 239, 245 (1985). 121 Lab. Code § 515(d) (regular rate for nonexempt salaried employee is 1/40th of weekly salary). 122 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). 123 Lab. Code §§ 201, 202. 124 Lab. Code § 204.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4