(a) Differences between clock records and actual hours worked. Time clocks are not required. In those cases where time clocks are used, employees who voluntarily come in before their regular starting time or remain after their closing time, do not have to be paid for such periods provided, of course, that they do not engage in any work. Their early or late clock punching may be disregarded. Minor differences between the clock records and actual hours worked cannot ordinarily be avoided, but major discrepancies should be discouraged since they raise a doubt as to the accuracy of the records of the hours actually worked.
(b) “Rounding” practices. It has been found that in some industries, particularly where time clocks are used, there has been the practice for many years of recording the employees' starting time and stopping time to the nearest 5 minutes, or to the nearest one-tenth or quarter of an hour. Presumably, this arrangement averages out so that the employees are fully compensated for all the time they actually work. For enforcement purposes this practice of computing working time will be accepted, provided that it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.
Notes of Decisions
Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 5× “The court determined that because the company’s rounding policy was neutral on its face and in practice, TWEAN’s policy complied with the federal rounding regulation, see 29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (b), and Corbin’s $15.”
Hardy v. Lewis Gale Med. Ctr., LLC, 377 F. Supp. 3d 596 (W.D. Va. 2019).
· cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (b) permits employers to round time to the nearest quarter of an hour, provided that the arrangement averages out so that the employees are fully compensated for the time they actually work.”
Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC, 481 P.3d 661 (Cal. 2021).
· cites it 2× “( 29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (b) (2020).) The regulation, first promulgated in 16 DONOHUE v.”
Torri Houston v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 76 F.4th 1145 (8th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (b). Time clocks are not required, but [i]n those cases where time clocks are used, employees who voluntarily come in before their regular starting time or remain after their closing time, do not have to be paid for such periods provided, of course, that they…”
Brian Weil v. Metal Tech., Inc., 925 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “In doing so, the court relied on 29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (a), which specifies that employers do not have to compensate employees for minor pre- and post-shift time-clock punches (for example, clocking in ten minutes before a shift starts) as long as they aren't working during that…”
AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 804 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
· cites it 3× “" ( 29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (b).) 7 Federal district courts interpreting the provision have almost universally concluded that a rounding system is valid if it "average[s] out sufficiently," rejecting claims that minor discrepancies in individual employee's wage calculations establish…”
Longcrier v. HL-A CO., INC., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (S.D. Ala. 2009).
· cites it 2× “19 ; 3 (b) a claim that HL-A willfully violated the FLSA by adopting a rounding policy pursuant to which Plaintiffs’ and similarly situated employees’ time worked was always rounded down to the 15-minute increment that most favored the employer, in violation of 29 C.F.R. §…”
Sali ex rel. Themselves v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 909 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2018).
“But by suggesting that "non-compensable activities, such as waiting in the break room, getting coffee, or chatting with their co-workers" are categorically not time "actually worked," the district court incorrectly interpreted "actually worked" to mean only time spent engaged in…”
Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Another FLSA regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (a), specifically governs situations in which employees punch in early or punch out late.”
Donohue v. Amn Servs., LLC, 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
· cites it 3× “) Under this standard, an employer's rounding policy is "fair and neutral" if " 'on average, [it] favors neither overpayment nor underpayment' "; but such a policy is unacceptable if it " 'systematically undercompensate[s] employees' " because it " 'encompasses only rounding…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b) — 7 cases
Donohue v. Amn Servs., LLC, 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“) Under this standard, an employer's rounding policy is "fair and neutral" if " 'on average, [it] favors neither overpayment nor underpayment' "; but such a policy is unacceptable if it " 'systematically undercompensate[s] employees' " because it " 'encompasses only rounding…”
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.