Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions (23rd Edition) 85 result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.”411 Then, in 2019, the California Court of Appeal held that rounding can be “fair and neutral” even where most workers lose pay as a result. In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, the plaintiff alleged that employees were underpaid because of a policy that rounded time punches up or down to the nearest quarter-hour.412 The plaintiff had shown that the rounding policy resulted in her losing time in 55.1% of her shifts, and that a separate sample group of employees lost time in 54.6% of their shifts.413 Ferra held that “[t]his is not sufficient to show that the rounding policy ‘systematically undercompensate[s] employees.’”414 While the federal rounding standard and See’s permitted rounding policies where the majority of employees were overcompensated, Ferra stated that a rounding policy does not require that employees be overcompensated.415 Rather, a rounding policy can be “fair and neutral” on its face even where a “small majority” of employees lose compensation.416 However, in 2022 the California Court of Appeal in Camp v. Home Depot issued an opinion on rounding that was unwelcome to employers. In Camp, the court held that if an employer is able to capture the exact amount of time an employee works, then any type of rounding is improper, even when it is “neutral on its face” (as specified under See’s and Ferra).417 While the ruling in Camp ignores almost a decade worth of precedent, Camp specifically invited the California Supreme Court to weigh in on the appropriateness of rounding where an employer’s timekeeping system has captured all minutes an employee has worked, but the employer nevertheless applies rounding. The California Supreme Court granted the petition to review the Camp decision,418 and a ruling is expected in early 2024. Similarily, the Court of Appeals in Woodworth v. Loma Linda University held that when an employer can capture, and has captured, the exact amount of time an employee has worked during a shift, the employer must pay the employee for all the time worked.419 Given the Camp and Woodworth decisions, employers are now on notice that they face potential liability if they choose to round employee time, even if they use a rounding practice that is fair and neutral on its face, particularity if they have a timekeeping system that can capture the exact times worked by employees. However, in granting the petition to review the Camp decision, the California Supreme Court specifically noted that Camp 411 See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012). 412 Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1239, 1253 (2019), rev'd on other grounds, 11 Cal. 5th 858 (2021). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Ferra based on a question of interpretation of premium pay for meal and rest periods, and did not consider any issues related to rounding. 413 Id. at 1253-54. 414 Id. at 1254. 415 Id. at 1255. 416 Id. 417 Camp v. Home Depot, 84 Cal.App.5th 638 (2022) 418 304 Cal.Rptr.3d 82 (2023). 419 Woodworth v. Loma Linda U., 93 Cal.App.5th 1038 (2023)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4