Understanding the New Overtime Tax Policies in the Big Beautiful Bill
Is the Four-Day Workweek Really a Benefit? What’s the Tea in L&E?
Constangy Clips Ep. 11 - Summer Interns and Short-Term Workers: 3 Tips for Managing Seasonal Hires
New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Navigating Contractor vs. Employee Classification
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 45: New Leadership at Employment-Related Federal Agencies with David Dubberly of Maynard Nexsen
Employee Rights in Non-Unionized Workplaces: What's the Tea in L&E?
The Changing Landscape of EEOC Enforcement and Disparate Impact
Multijurisdictional Employers, Part 1: Independent Contractors vs. Employees
The Labor Law Insider: How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part II
The Evolution of Equal Pay: Lessons From 9 to 5 — Hiring to Firing Podcast
The Labor Law Insider - How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part I
Insider Strategies for Wage and Hour Compliance Success: One-on-One with Paul DeCamp
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 42: Non-Compete Agreements with Mitchell Greggs of Maynard Nexsen
Stumbling Your Way Into a Union: Key Advice for Employers: What’s the Tea in L&E?
The Labor Law Insider: What's Next for Labor Law Under the Trump Administration, Part I
The Labor Law Insider: Student Athletes as Employees – Changes and Updates on the Dartmouth Case, NIL Litigation
#WorkforceWednesday®: Employment Law in 2025: A Look Ahead - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: 2024 Workforce Review - Top Labor and Employment Law Trends and Updates - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-155 - The Trump 2.0 Impact on Labor and Employment Law
Ruling on a matter of first impression under Maryland law, the Maryland Supreme Court recently decided, in Martinez, et al. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Misc. No. 17, Sept. Term 2024 (July 3, 2025), that the rule of “de...more
The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...more
On August 6, 2012, Douglas Troester, a former shift supervisor at a Starbucks location, filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in state court in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Troester filed his lawsuit on behalf of himself and a...more
Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks, a unanimous California Supreme Court held that California labor statutes and wage orders do not incorporate federal de minimis work exceptions. Yet, the Court declined to define when, if...more
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court rejected the federal de minimis doctrine, making clear that in any instance in which employees perform “minutes of work,” before or after their shifts, that time must...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Starbucks employee seeking compensation for time spent closing the store after clocking out. This decision in Troester v. Starbucks may limit the ability of...more
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...more
• In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, the California Supreme Court on July 26, 2018, resoundingly rejected the de minimis doctrine commonly applied under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to claims for unpaid...more
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, and departed from federal law’s more employer-friendly version of the de minimis rule, which it characterized as stuck in the...more