James Musgrove v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to apply California’s common-law de minimis exception under the specific facts of the case in part because California’s laws, which require payment “for all hours worked,” are “indeed concerned with ‘small things’”
• defining hours worked as “the time during which an employee is 6 | subject to the control of an employer” and holding that “[t]he relevant statutes and wage order do 7 not allow employers to require employees to routinely work for minutes off the clock without compensation”
• “One such alternative, which it appears Starbucks eventually resorted to here, was to restructure the work so that employees would not have to work before or after clocking out.”
• on certification by the Ninth Circuit as to whether 7 California’s wage and hour statutes or regulations adopted the de minimis doctrine found 8 in the FLSA, the Supreme Court of California answered in the negative

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).