Isaac Rodriguez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant,
Nike Retail Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
and Submitted June 14, 2019 San Francisco, California
from the United States District Court No. 5:14-cv-01508-BLF
for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freeman,
District Judge, Presiding
Gavron (argued), Nicholas Rosenthal, and Larry W. Lee,
Diversity Law Group APC, Los Angeles, California; William L.
Marder, Polaris Law Group LLP, Hollister, California; Dennis
S. Hyun, Hyun Legal APC, Los Angeles, California; for
Meer (argued) and Michael Afar, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los
Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit
Judges, and JED S. RAKOFF, [*] District Judge.
De Minimis Doctrine
panel reversed the district court's summary judgment in
favor of Nike Retail Services, Inc., and held that after
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 421 P.3d 1114 (Cal.
2018), the federal de minimis doctrine - which
precludes recovery for otherwise compensable amounts of time
that are small, irregular, or administratively difficult to
record - does not apply to wage and hour claims brought under
the California Labor Code.
panel held that the district court's grant of summary
judgment cannot be affirmed on the record below. The panel
remanded for further proceedings consistent with
RAKOFF, DISTRICT JUDGE
Nike Retail Services, Inc. ("Nike") requires its
retail employees to undergo "off the clock" exit
inspections every time they leave the store. Seeking
compensation for the time spent on these exit inspections,
plaintiff Isaac Rodriguez brought a class action on behalf of
himself and similarly situated Nike employees. The District
Court granted summary judgment for Nike, holding the
Rodriguez's claims were barred by the federal de
minimis doctrine, which precludes recovery for otherwise
compensable amounts of time that are small, irregular, or
administratively difficult to record. The California Supreme
Court subsequently held in Troester v. Starbucks
Corp., 421 P.3d 1114 (Cal. 2018), that the federal
de minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour
claims brought under California law. Accordingly, we reverse
and remand to the District Court for further proceedings
consistent with Troester.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
District Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment for Nike
has 34 retail stores in California. At these stores,
employees (other than those exempt from applicable wage and
hour laws) are required to track their hours by
"punching" in and out on a time clock. Separately,
these employees are required to submit to exit inspections
each time they leave the store on a break or at the end of
the day. These inspections can be longer or shorter
depending, for example, 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.
Regardless of how long the inspections take, however, they
occur after the employee has punched out, such that exit
inspections are "off the clock" and are thus
Isaac Rodriguez worked at Nike's Gilroy, California
retail store from November 2011 to January 2012. On February
25, 2014, Rodriguez filed a class-action complaint in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, and on April 1, 2014, Nike
removed the case to the District Court. On December 8, 2014,
Rodriguez filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint,
which brings claims under: (1) California Labor Code
§§ 1194 and 1197 (failure to pay minimum wages);
(2) California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 (failure
to pay overtime wages); and (3) California Business and
Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (unfair business
practices). On August 19, 2016, the District ...