Falcon v. Starbucks Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that whether plaintiffs’ off- the-clock work was compensable, defendants knew about the work, and the work was de minimis could be adequately raised at trial on representative testimony
• holding that employees were similarly situated when they held the same job title, worked under the same job description, and worked within a uniform supervision hierarchy — even when employees worked in different stores under different supervisors
• finding that the plaintiffs had proven they were similarly situated “despite the fact that Starbucks had an official ‘time worked is time paid’ policy”
• denying decertification for Starbucks assistant managers whose only written records inaccurately stated that they had worked only 40 per week
• rejecting argument that differing job duties and motivations for working overtime defeated a similarly situated finding where all employees alleged that they were not compensated for overtime hours worked
• finding no dispute that “all of the opt-ins held the same job title and worked under the exact same job description and supervision hierarchy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).