As we wrote about beforehand right here, in October 2022, the Sixth District of the California Court docket of Attraction in Camp v. Dwelling Depot U.S.A., Inc., 84 Cal.App.fifth 638 (2022), ignored a decade of precedent and located Dwelling Depot’s complete time rounding for its non-exempt staff was illegal. In so holding, the courtroom held, “if an employer, as on this case, can seize and has captured the precise period of time an worker has labored throughout a shift, the employer should pay the worker for ‘on a regular basis’ labored.” The courtroom rejected not less than half a dozen prior appellate opinions and as a substitute targeted on fastidiously chosen passages from the California Supreme Court docket’s holding in Troester v. Starbucks, 5 Cal.fifth 829 (2018) and Donohue v. AMN, 11 Cal.fifth 58 (2021). In Troester, the Supreme Court docket held the federal de minimis doctrine didn’t apply in California, and staff should be paid forever labored, even throughout actions that happen recurrently however take only some minutes per day earlier than clocking in (e.g., present process a bag test). In Donohue, the Supreme Court docket rejected time rounding for 30-minute meal durations, though it didn’t handle whether or not rounding of clock punches for out and in occasions when shifts start and finish was improper.
The Camp courtroom discovered rounding of staff’ complete time is impermissible when the employer data precise time and has the power to pay by the minute. In reaching its determination, the courtroom relied totally on one plaintiff who misplaced time as a result of rounding. Strikingly, the courtroom ignored the truth that the opposite plaintiff was admittedly overpaid as a result of rounding. The underpayment of 1 plaintiff and overpayment of one other suggests rounding evened out over time as a complete. Nevertheless, the Camp courtroom didn’t take into account this extremely vital reality and ignored the settled precept that rounding techniques shouldn’t be assessed or discovered illegal solely on the premise of their remoted impression on a single worker.
After Dwelling Depot appealed, the California Supreme Court docket granted overview of the opinion in February 2023. The events’ briefing is underway, and on June 1, 2023, Dwelling Depot filed its opening temporary. Absent any extensions, Camp’s response temporary will likely be due July 3, 2023. Dwelling Depot will then have the chance to file a reply temporary.
The California Employment Regulation Council (“CELC”) and the Employers Group, non-profit corporations who advocate on behalf of employers, have employed Richard J. Simmons and Tyler J. Johnson of Sheppard Mullin to draft the employer-side amicus temporary in Camp. In doing so, CELC and the Employers Group have confirmed Sheppard Mullin’s place because the preeminent employment legislation agency and subject-matter knowledgeable on wage and hour points. The amicus temporary will function the voice of employers all through California and can present additional help to Dwelling Depot to point out the California Supreme Court docket the validity of time rounding. Time rounding has lengthy been utilized by employers in California and the California Court docket of Attraction has persistently upheld its validity when the practices are correctly designed. The Camp determination has known as into query whether or not employers can proceed to spherical time. An opposed ruling by the Supreme Court docket may result in potential class motion and PAGA claims in addition to unpaid wages and penalties legal responsibility for employers. Sheppard Mullin’s amicus temporary will play a essential position in arguing to the Supreme Court docket that this could not happen.
Sheppard Mullin will proceed to replace readers because the briefing course of unfolds.
