Troester v. Starbucks Corporation
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLiu, J.
**1116 *834 Upon a request by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548 ), we agreed to answer the following question: Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680 , 692, 66 S.Ct. 1187 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 , and *835 Lindow v. United States (9th Cir. 1984) 738 F.2d 1057 , 1063, apply to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197 ?
The de minimis doctrine is an application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex , which means "[t]he law…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Martinez v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- Aaron Senne v. Kansas City Royals BaseballCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Donohue v. AMN Services, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2021
- Alexia Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2021
- Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2020
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.