84 Cal.App.5th 638
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Delmer Camp and Adriana Correa sued Home Depot for unpaid wages, alleging Home Depot’s Kronos system recorded minutes but pay was calculated by quarter-hour rounding.
- Home Depot’s Kronos captured punch time to the minute but Home Depot rounded total shift time to the nearest 0.25 hour; rounding rules: ≤7 minutes down, ≥8 minutes up.
- Stipulated payroll data covered 13,387 employees and millions of shifts; in aggregate rounding produced a net surplus for employees, but individual results varied.
- Correa’s records showed no net loss (she conceded overpayment); Camp’s records showed a net loss of 470 minutes (≈7.83 hours) between 2015–2020.
- Trial court granted Home Depot summary judgment applying See’s Candy (rounding lawful if neutral and does not undercompensate over time). Appellate court reversed as to Camp, dismissed Correa’s appeal as abandoned, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quarter-hour rounding is lawful where employer captures exact minutes and an individual employee suffers a net loss | Rounding that results in an individual not being paid for all captured minutes violates Labor Code/wage order; all time worked must be paid | Rounding is neutral on its face and as applied and lawful under See's Candy and federal rounding guidance | Reversed summary judgment for Camp; triable issue exists because Home Depot captured minutes and Camp had a net loss — employer did not meet burden of no triable issue |
| Whether See’s Candy / federal rounding standard governs California law here | Troester and Donohue counsel against importing less-protective federal standards; California requires payment for all time worked where minutes can be captured | See's Candy and DLSE practice treat neutral rounding as acceptable if it averages out over employees/pay periods | Court limited See's Candy application: did not adopt federal averaging-for-all-employees rule to justify underpayment of an individual when employer captured exact minutes; followed Troester/Donohue guidance |
| Correa’s standing to pursue unpaid-wage claim | Correa conceded she was paid for all time and cannot state a claim | Home Depot argued Correa lacks standing because she suffered no loss | Appeal dismissed as abandoned for Correa; summary judgment properly entered against her |
| Whether employer administrative/efficiency interests justify rounding when precise records exist | Rounding simplifies payroll, smooths incidental nonwork minutes, and yields verifiable paystubs | Employer efficiency alone justifies neutral rounding practice | Court rejected efficiency/administrative- difficulty justification where employer already captures exact minutes and rounding produced an individual underpayment |
Key Cases Cited
- See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held rounding lawful if neutral and does not result, over time, in failure to compensate employees)
- Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (Cal. 2018) (California requires payment for all hours worked; rejects importing federal de minimis rule to excuse regularly recurring unpaid minutes)
- Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal.5th 58 (Cal. 2021) (rounding impermissible in meal-period context; technological advances undercut rounding justifications)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (intermediate courts must follow Supreme Court guidance)
- Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 762 (Cal. 2020) (employers may measure compensation by various convenient standards, but choice to pay by time carries obligations)
- AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.5th 1014 (Cal. Ct. App.) (applied See’s Candy to uphold quarter-hour rounding in that context)
- David v. Queen of Valley Medical Center, 51 Cal.App.5th 653 (Cal. Ct. App.) (applied See’s Candy approach to rounding)
- Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.–Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussed federal rounding regulation and averaging effect across employees)