In
Donohue, the employer used a timekeeping system that rounded employees time punches for meal periods to the nearest 10-minute increment. For example, if an employee clocked out for lunch at 11:02 a.m. and clocked in after lunch at 11:25 a.m., the system would record the time punches as 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., showing a 30 minute meal period, even though the actual meal period was only 23 minutes. Conversely, if an employee clocked out for lunch at 10:55 a.m. and clocked in after lunch at 11:34 a.m., the system would only show a 30 minute meal period even though the actual meal period was 39 minutes.
[co-author: Clinton Ford, Jr.]
On Thursday, February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling addressing legal standards for meal period violations in
1 In its opinion, the court required strict compliance for providing meal periods, and specifically condemned the practice of rounding to the nearest time increment for meal periods. The court also clarified that a rebuttable presumption of liability applies when time records show shortened, delayed, or missed meal periods.
In
Donahue, the plaintiff filed a class action against her employer for failure to pay premium wages for meal periods that did not strictly comply with California’s requirement to provide a 30-minute meal period within the first five hours of work. Among the issues raised was the contention that the employer’s time-capturing policy rounded time punches to the nearest 10-minute increment, resulting in meal periods that were as short as 22 minutes being rounded up to 30 minutes. Th
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On Thursday, February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court
issued a long-awaited ruling addressing legal standards for meal
period violations in
1
In its opinion, the court required strict compliance for providing
meal periods, and specifically condemned the practice of rounding
to the nearest time increment for meal periods. The court also
clarified that a rebuttable presumption of liability applies when
time records show shortened, delayed, or missed meal periods.
In
Donahue, the plaintiff filed a class action against
her employer for failure to pay premium wages for meal periods that
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Over the last decade, courts have permitted California employers to use timekeeping policies that round employee time punches (e.g., to the nearest 10th of an hour) if the rounding policy is facially neutral and used in a manner that will not result over time in the failure to compensate employees properly for all time actually worked. However, whether rounding can be similarly used for California meal period compliance purposes has been an unresolved issue.
On Feb. 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court held in
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC that rounding policies cannot be applied in the meal period context. The court also held that time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations.
Last week, in
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court handed down a very important, if unsurprising, decision regarding wage and hour class actions. There are three critically important takeaways for employers:
An employer
cannot round employee meal period punches only exact time will work, as any non-compliance (even as minor as one minute) will trigger liability to pay a meal period premium.
Rounding the start time of an employee’s shift is also functionally prohibited because of the potential that it will result in an employee starting his or her meal period after the end of the fifth hour, resulting in a violation of section 512 of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Orders.