There have also been a number of other court cases decided, resurrected and/or revisited over the past few weeks that we thought you should be aware of as they all may be very much relevant to your business. Starbucks won the battle, but might be losing the war in a California case over cancer warnings being required on coffee cups. You may recall that back in April, LA Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle found that coffee sellers were violating California law and are required to put warning labels on coffee cups warning consumers that coffee contains small amounts of a carcinogen, acrylamide. The “win”, such as it is, amounted to the court agreeing to a continuance so it could first consider a motion to stay the case while the California Office of Environment Health Hazard Assessment decides whether to issue an exemption for coffee and finalize a proposed rule that coffee does not need a warning. The continuance was a ‘win’, but small consolation. In another Starbucks case, also coming out of California, the state Supreme Court ruled that employers must pay workers for minutes they routinely spend off the clock – on tasks such as locking up or setting the store alarm. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) employs a “de minimis doctrine” prohibiting employees from making claims over small amounts of time. In a unanimous ruling, the court found that the FLSA “de minimis doctrine” did not apply in California and that a Starbucks employee was entitled to be paid for the time he spent closing the store after he had clocked out. The employee said he regularly activated the store alarm, locked the front door and even walked co-workers to their cars, spending between 4 and 10 extra minutes per day for which he was not compensated. The court found Starbucks owed him $102.67 over the past 17 months for that unpaid time. As a result of this decision, other businesses in California will need to pay employees for their “de minimis” time performing work functions even though they are off the clock. With ‘wins’ like these, who needs losses?