White v. Starbucks Corp., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Walker, J.)

Steve White, a former store manager for Starbucks, claimed the company had failed to (1) pay overtime wages in violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 204 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070(12)(A); (2) provide meal and rest periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; and (3) provide correct itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226. White also alleged that Starbucks had competed unfairly in violation of the Unfair Competition Law. White, who quit his job 11 days after starting work, admitted he did not notify Starbucks that he had worked overtime or off the clock. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Starbucks, holding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Starbucks knew about the allegedly unpaid time. The Court refused to follow Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal. App. 4th 949 (2005), and held that while an employer is required to offer meal breaks, it need not ensure that employees actually take such breaks. Cf. Arias v. Superior Court, 153 Cal. App. 4th 777 (2007) (representative claim brought under the Unfair Competition Law must be brought as a class action, though representative claim brought under Private Attorneys General Act need not be); Corrales v. Bradstreet, 153 Cal. App. 4th 33 (2007) (Labor Commissioner’s attempt to issue a binding precedent decision regarding meal and rest periods was an invalid circumvention of the rulemaking requirements of state law).