California Supreme Court Invalidates Rounding Time for Meals

The California Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous opinion in a case that involved the rounding of time punches for meal periods. The highest court in California held that employers are not allowed to engage in the practice of rounding time punches for meal periods and that if timecards show non-compliant meal periods, there is an automatic rebuttable presumption of violations, including as early as the summary judgment stage at trial. This ruling could have implications for your wages and benefits as a California employee. To learn more, talk to an experienced California employment law attorney in your area today.

Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC

In the case of Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC a California employer utilized a timekeeping system for its workers that required punching in and out of work, including for meal periods. The employer would round all employee punch times to the nearest 10-minute increment, both earlier and later, for all punch times including those for meal periods. For example, if a worker punched out for lunch at 11:06 a.m. it would round to 11:10 a.m., and punching in at 12:04 p.m. would round to 12:00 p.m. This resulted in inaccurate timekeeping for meal periods, including recording full meal periods when in actuality the meal period was shorter than the allowed time.

If an employee’s time punches showed a meal less than 30 minutes or missed, the system would ask the worker to provide a reason. If the reason was the press of work, the worker would be credited with a meal premium of one additional hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation.

Citing health and safety concerns, the California Supreme Court found that time rounding was not appropriate for meal breaks, even though state and federal cases have permitted rounding for other uses. They noted that minor infringements to meal periods can result in significant burdens to the employee and further found that as technologies continue to improve regarding timekeeping the advantages of rounding policies continue to diminish.

Rebuttable Presumptions

The case took their holding one step further and cited the concurrence of another case involving non-compliant meal periods. The California Supreme Court found that if the meal records show non-compliance with state meal period laws, it creates a rebuttable presumption of violations by the employer. An employer would be required to show that they compensated employees for non-compliant meals or offered compliant meal periods during which the employee chose to work. To learn more about whether this case applies to issues you have had with your employer regarding meal periods, talk to an experienced employment law attorney today.

Call or Contact a Lawyer Now

This case is a win for workers in California who may be subject to time rounding for meal periods or other non-compliant acts on the part of their employers. If you suspect that your employer is violating your wage or benefit rights, it is important that you speak with a knowledgeable California employment lawyer today.