Eisele v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., 643 F.Supp.3d 1166

Home Depot uses Kronos to record minute-by-minute punches for nonexempt Oregon associates but its payroll software rounds each total shift time to the nearest quarter hour (0–7 → 0; 8–22 → 15; 23–37 → 30; 38–52 → 45; 53–60 → 60).
Plaintiff Kathleen Eisele filed a putative class action in Oregon state court alleging (1) unlawful rounding that net-underpaid employees and (2) failure to pay final wages on termination; Defendant removed under CAFA.
On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, parties disputed whether Oregon law permits the rounding practice (and, if not, whether any unpaid minutes are de minimis) and whether rounding-related underpayments are willful for penalty purposes.
Defendant argued Oregon courts may adopt the federal rounding standard in 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b) (and relied on out-of-state decisions and a prior district court Oregon decision); Plaintiff argued Oregon law requires payment for all hours worked and does not authorize such rounding.
The court took evidence showing Home Depot captures exact minutes and then rounds for payroll; plaintiff’s aggregate damages model estimated a significant net loss to associates.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Permissibility of rounding under Oregon law	Rounding is not authorized; Oregon requires pay for all hours worked	Federal rule (29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b)) can be borrowed to permit rounding if neutral and averages out	Court: Rounding that results in underpayment is not authorized where employer captures exact minutes; §785.48(b) has no Oregon analog and conflicts with Oregon law
Applicability of de minimis doctrine	Rounding produced substantial aggregate unpaid time; not de minimis	Any lost minutes are de minimis under Lindow/Corbin; summary judgment for employer	Court: De minimis doctrine does not apply; no administrative difficulty, aggregate loss significant, uncompensated time was regular
Willfulness (penalty wages under ORS 652.150)	Rounding violations support penalties; employer acted willfully	Employer had reasonable, good‑faith legal belief (Du Ju and other authorities) and thus not willful	Court: State of law was sufficiently uncertain; employer’s reasonable belief negates willfulness — no penalties for rounding

See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (adopted federal rounding standard where state law was treated as silent)
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (Cal. 2018) (refused to import federal de minimis rule; emphasized employees must be paid for all work)
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal.5th 58 (Cal. 2021) (addressed rounding for meal periods and questioned rounding efficiencies given minute-level tracking)
Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984) (articulated three‑factor de minimis test)
Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016) (applied Lindow test and found one uncompensated minute de minimis)
Young v. State, 340 Or. 401 (Or. 2006) (Oregon Supreme Court: employer is chargeable with statutory knowledge; mistake of law may not excuse willfulness when statute was clear)
State ex rel. Nilsen v. Lee, 251 Or. 284 (Or. 1969) (explained "willful" requires intentional, knowing failure to pay; bona fide belief may negate willfulness)