By: Christina Jaremus and Noah Finkel
Seyfarth Synopsis: A federal district court held that “boot-up” and “shut-down” time in a call-center environment is de minimis and therefore not compensable.
It has been hornbook law since the early days of the
Generally, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employers to compensate their non-exempt employees for all time that they are required or allowed to perform work, regardless of where and when the work is done. However, an exception exists for
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (S234969) on whether California wage and hour law recognizes the de minimis doctrine established by the United States Supreme Court in Anderson
Employees have been bringing wage-and-hour collective actions since long before class procedures were officially integrated into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures in 1966. Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) permitted collective actions when it was passed
Today, the US Supreme Court decided Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, an appeal from a jury verdict for plaintiffs seeking overtime pay via a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and a Rule 23 class action under Iowa’s wage
Counsel for wage-and-hour plaintiffs often argue – in settlement negotiations and in court – that the plaintiff’s burden under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692 (1946), applicable if there are no records of hours worked, renders
Co-authored by Rishi Puri, Noah Finkel, and Andrew Paley
At this point, California employers are all too familiar with litigation seeking compensation for preliminary and postliminary activities. The de minimis doctrine is a main line of defense in
Co-authored by Rishi Puri, Noah Finkel, and Andrew Paley
At this point, California employers are all too familiar with litigation seeking compensation for preliminary and postliminary activities. The de minimis doctrine is a main line of defense in