If timekeeping procedures have you fulfilling work duties after clocking out, even for a matter of minutes, courts indicate they are backing your right for compensation.

While employers have previously used the federal de minimis doctrine as an  excuse to not compensate employees for lcertain tasks (such as store closing procedures) that are required of employees after clocking out, recent rulings indicate California employees are entitled to compensation – no matter how brief the work.

The shift in consideration of de minimis applicable time started in the California Supreme Court’s determination in Troester v. Starbucks that the de minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour claims brought under the California Labor Code, and more recently has been substantiated by the Ninth Circuit in a reversal of the district court’s summary judgment in Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc.

In Troester, a former shift supervisor alleged the company required him to clock out before performing store closing tasks that on average took four to ten minutes to complete. During his 17-month employment with Starbucks this totaled 12 hours and 50 minutes of unpaid hours worked.

The district court ruled in favor of Starbucks, affirming the de minimis doctrine applied due to the modest amount of time in question.

Similarly, the Rodriguez wage and hour class action claimed unpaid time for dcertain off the clock work. Prior to leaving the store for a break or at the end of a shift, Nike employees underwent mandatory security checks that occurred after clocking out.

The exit inspections, which are a theft prevention measure not uncommon for retailers, on average took between zero to three minutes depending on “whether an employee needs to wait at the exit for someone to check them, whether the employee is carrying a box or bag that must be inspected, or the like.” The district court granted Nike’s motion for summary judgement based on the de minimis doctrine.

While an appeal was pending in Rodriguez, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Troester, finding that the de minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour claims brought under the California Labor Code. Based on Troester, thee Ninth Circuit overturned the district court’s ruling in favor of Nike; affirming this is no longer a defense under California law for employers who require regular off-the-clock work.

Especially significant to employeessn is that in the Rodriguez appeal Nike emphasized that majority of exit inspections took a matter of seconds. Because of that distinction Nike argued the time in question applied as de minimis even under Troester, which stated uncompensated work could not be required for minutes off the clock.  This makes the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate ruling a strong statement that California courts value employees’ time and compensation rights for any amount of work employers regularly require to be performed.

If you need help understanding your legal options and protections in this area, contact Keller Grover for a free consultation. In more than 25 years litigating fraud and employment cases, the lawyers at Keller Grover have recovered hundreds of millions for clients and class members.