Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership
821 F.3d 1069
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Corbin worked as a non-exempt hourly technical support agent at TWEAN’s San Diego call center; in May 2010 TWEAN implemented an Avaya (soft-phone)/Kronos timekeeping system that automatically clocks employees in/out and rounds each timestamp to the nearest quarter-hour.
- Over the period May 5, 2010–June 15, 2011 Corbin worked 269 shifts under the rounding policy and, on net, alleges a $15.02 loss in wages due to rounding; he also identifies one occasion where he spent one minute logging into an auxiliary program before Kronos and was not paid for that minute.
- Corbin sued under the FLSA and California wage laws alleging (1) unlawful rounding that deprived him of earned wages/overtime and (2) uncompensated pre-clock-in work (logging-in claim); he sought class certification for California claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for TWEAN: it found the rounding policy neutral and compliant with 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b), and held the single uncompensated minute was de minimis.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Corbin’s interpretations of the federal rounding regulation and upholding application of the de minimis doctrine to the one-minute logging claim; it also found no error in limiting examination to post-May 4, 2010 records and denied remand for class certification as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of quarter-hour rounding under 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b) | Any net loss to an individual employee (even small) shows a non-neutral rounding policy and violates the regulation | Rounding is a neutral calculation method that need only average out over time across employees/pay periods as contemplated by the regulation | Rounding valid: policy is facially and practically neutral; §785.48(b) does not require each employee to break even every pay period; summary judgment for TWEAN affirmed |
| Effect of rounding on overtime calculation | Overtime rounding can produce disproportionate losses (higher-rate minutes) so overtime requires special treatment | Rounding applies equally to regular and overtime minutes; employees can gain and lose overtime minutes and the system remains neutral over time | Court rejects special overtime rule; treats overtime minutes the same; no triable issue |
| One-minute uncompensated pre-clock-in work (logging-in claim) | The one minute was compensable work; de minimis doctrine cannot be asserted because defendant did not plead it as an affirmative defense | The minute is de minimis under Anderson/Lindow; de minimis is a rule, not an affirmative defense and may be raised at summary judgment | One minute is de minimis; defendant may assert the rule without affirmative pleading; summary judgment for TWEAN affirmed |
| Temporal scope of claims (pre-May 4, 2010 wall-clock period) | District court improperly truncated the relevant employment window and excluded pre-Avaya/Kronos rounding claims | Rounding claim concerns Avaya/Kronos rounding; pre-May 4 wall-clock records are not amenable to precise rounding analysis and plaintiff had opportunities to address the issue | Court affirms limiting claims to post-May 4, 2010 period; no genuine issue that justifies reopening pre-May 4 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (establishes de minimis rule and that few seconds or minutes beyond scheduled hours may be disregarded)
- Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984) (three-factor test for de minimis: administrative difficulty, aggregate amount, regularity)
- See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (applies federal rounding regulation to California claims and requires neutrality facially and as applied)
- Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (district court precedent upholding neutral rounding policies under § 785.48(b))