On February 25, 2021, in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court held timekeeping practices which round time punches cannot be used for meal periods. In addition, the Court made a separate determination that time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations during summary judgment.
In the case, Defendant AMN Services, LLC had previously used a time rounding policy which rounded time punches to the nearest 10-minute increment. So, if an employee clocked out for lunch at 11:02 a.m. and clocked in at 11:25 a.m., the timekeeping system would record the time punches as 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.
The Court began its analysis by detailing how California law requires meal periods to be “not less than 30 minutes.” The Court stated the specific mention of “not less than 30 minutes” reflect how California’s meal period laws are concerned with small amounts of time.
The Court also considered meal period premiums, where employers are required to provide additional pay if an employee does not receive a compliant meal period. Because meal period premiums must be paid no matter how minor the meal period violation, the Court found strict adherence with the 30-minute minimum duration is required.
Additionally, the Court noted its finding was consistent with the purpose of meal periods—safeguarding employees’ health, safety, and well-being. Thus, the Court found meal period time rounding practices to be unlawful. Of note, the Court expressly stated it was not ruling on the validity of rounding practices outside the meal period context – that is the rounding of employees’ time punches at the start and end of a shift.
The Court then made its second holding that time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations at summary judgment. Under this presumption, time records showing missing, short, or late meal periods are presumed to be meal period violations.
The Court stated the presumption derived from employers’ duties to maintain accurate records of meal periods. The Court found because time records are required to be accurate, it follows that the rebuttable presumption of meal period violations should apply when the records do not reflect clear compliance.
Thereafter, the Court detailed how employers could rebut the presumption of meal period violations, such as through testimony, survey, and statistical evidence. According to the Court, the rebuttable presumption does not require employers to police meal periods, it requires employers to give employees a mechanism to record their meal periods and to ensure employees use the time recording mechanism properly. Thus, the Court stated employers must ensure employees are relieved from duty during meal periods and meal periods are accurately reflected in the employees’ time records.
The Impact of Donohue
In light of the case, employers should promptly change any meal period time rounding practices. Instead of rounding meal period time punches, employers should ensure meal period time punches are recorded exactly as entered. Furthermore, while the Court expressly stated it was not ruling on the validity of time rounding practices outside the meal period context, employers may wish to reconsider the use of any time rounding practices as a result of Donohue.
Additionally, employers should make certain employees are using the timekeeping system to properly record employees’ meal period time punches. The failure to do so may give rise to a rebuttable presumption of meal period liability. As such, employers should consider performing regular audits of employee time records to ensure employees are accurately recording their meal periods. If the required meal period is not provided or accurately recorded, employers should consider paying the mandated premium and taking action to ensure policy and record-keeping compliance in the future.