Time clock rounding in California
Why rounding punches is risky when you can record exact minutes, and why meal punches are never rounded.
Last reviewed October 30, 2026. This article explains the rules in plain words. It is not legal advice: your company and its counsel decide your policy.
Many time clocks round punches to the nearest 5, 6 or 15 minutes. Federal law allows it if the rounding is neutral over time. California is different.
Federal rule#
Under 29 CFR 785.48(b), an employer may round to the nearest 5 minutes, tenth of an hour or quarter hour, only if the rounding averages out so that employees are paid for all the time they actually work. Rounding that systematically favours the employer means back wages.
Meal punches: never#
The California Supreme Court held in Donohue v. AMN Healthcare (2021) that employers cannot round meal-period punches. Rounding can hide a meal that was short or started late, and those are exactly the breaks that owe a premium.
Shift punches: risky#
For start and end times, a California Court of Appeal held in 2022 (Camp v. Home Depot) that neutral rounding is not valid when the employer can capture the exact minute. The California Supreme Court granted review, and as of October 2026 the case was still pending. Until it rules, paying to the minute is the safe default.
No federal "de minimis" exception#
Federal law lets employers ignore a few seconds or minutes that are impractical to record. California does not: Troester v. Starbucks (2018) held that regularly recorded small amounts of time must be paid.
What to do#
- Record and pay exact minutes.
- Keep the raw punches, even when a time is corrected.
- Never round meal starts and ends.
How Oh! Thyme handles it#
In California the rule set has no rounding: every minute counts, premiums are worked out from the raw punches, and the original punches are always kept beside any correction. The admin's Pay > Rules page says so in one line.
Sources#
- 29 CFR 785.48: ecfr.gov
- Donohue v. AMN Services (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58: law.justia.com
- Camp v. Home Depot (2022), Court of Appeal: law.justia.com; review granted, S277518
- Troester v. Starbucks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829