Search for: "Troester v. Starbucks Corporation"
Results 1 - 16
of 16
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2020, 8:55 am
Starbucks Corporation that California’s wage and hour laws do not fully align with the federal de minimis doctrine. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 8:53 am
” On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. [read post]
11 Aug 2018, 6:34 am
Additional Resources: Troester v. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 2:37 pm
Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 3:32 pm
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Troester v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 3:32 pm
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Troester v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 12:48 pm
Starbucks Corporation (S234969) on whether California wage and hour law recognizes the de minimis doctrine established by the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 12:09 pm
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 1:24 pm
In Troester v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 1:24 pm
In Troester v. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 2:51 pm
Troester v. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 4:29 pm
’” Troester v. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 4:29 pm
’” Troester v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 5:21 pm
Starbucks Corporation (S234969). [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 3:21 pm
Starbucks Corporation. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 2:45 pm
The recent case of Troester v. [read post]