29 C.F.R. § 785.47

Where records show insubstantial or insignificant periods of time

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

In recording working time under the Act, insubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, may be disregarded. The courts have held that such trifles are de minimis. (Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946)) This rule applies only where there are uncertain and indefinite periods of time involved of a few seconds or minutes duration, and where the failure to count such time is due to considerations justified by industrial realities. An employer may not arbitrarily fail to count as hours worked any part, however small, of the employee's fixed or regular working time or practically ascertainable period of time he is regularly required to spend on duties assigned to him. See Glenn L. Martin Nebraska Co. v. Culkin, 197 F. 2d 981, 987 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 866 (1952), rehearing denied, 344 U.S. 888 (1952), holding that working time amounting to $1 of additional compensation a week is “not a trivial matter to a workingman,” and was not de minimis; Addison v. Huron Stevedoring Corp., 204 F. 2d 88, 95 (C.A. 2, 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 877, holding that “To disregard workweeks for which less than a dollar is due will produce capricious and unfair results.” Hawkins v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 12 W.H. Cases 448, 27 Labor Cases, para. 69,094 (E.D. Va., 1955), holding that 10 minutes a day is not de minimis.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 421 P.3d 1114 (Cal. 2018).
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 421 P.3d 1114 (Cal. 2018). · cites it 3× “" ( 29 C.F.R. § 785.47 (2018).) Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit in Lindow v.”
Ted L. Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.47 . Employers, therefore, must compensate *1063 employees for even small amounts of daily time unless that time is so miniscule that it cannot, as an administrative matter, be recorded for payroll purposes.”
Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., 650 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “Each of these employees was being paid at a rate of ten dollars per hour, and each would be entitled to compensation for 10.”
Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016). “29 C.F.R. § 785.47 . We think these guideposts offer the better characterization of the de minimis rulé.”
Del Rio v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc., 354 Conn. 151 (Conn. 2026). · cites it 5× “29 C.F.R § 785.47 (2025). To determine whether time may be disregarded as de minimis, federal courts consider three factors: “(1) the practical administrative difficulty of recording additional time; (2) the size of the claim in the aggregate; and (3) whether the claimants…”
Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014). “…time or practically ascertainable period of time he is regularly required to spend on duties assigned to him." 29 CFR § 785.47 .”
Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 428 F. App'x 400 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “1990) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 785.47 ). This rule applies only where there are uncertain and indefinite periods of time involved of a few seconds or minutes duration, and where the failure to count such time is due to considerations justified by industrial realities.”
Bustillos v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 697 F. App'x 597 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “t briefings for the detention officers qualified as compen-sable work under the FLSA; alternatively, the district court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence as to how much unpaid overtime they worked; and, further alternatively, the County is not…”
Lyons v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods LLC, 899 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “The question is whether the time required to perform these activities is more than de minimis . Employers are not required to pay employees for "insubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical administrative matter…”
Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc., 664 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 2011). “1984); see also 29 C.F.R. § 785.47 (“In recording working time .”
Johnson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, 554 F. Supp. 2d 693 (E.D. Tex. 2007). · cites it 3× “2d at 1414 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 785.47 ). The federal regulations also address this issue, stating as follows: [I]nsubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll…”
Aguilar v. Mgmt. & Training, 948 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2020). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.47 (providing that “insubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, may be disregarded”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.