July 24, 2014

“Nearest-Tenth Of An Hour” Rounding Policy Permissible Under California Law

Relying on the federal Department of Labor rounding standard, a California appellate court ruled last week that even in California an employer is entitled to use the nearest-tenth rounding policy if it is fair and neutral on its face and it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.

The court found a one-tenth rounding policy could be a valid affirmative defense to a class plaintiff’s claims for failure to pay for all work performed as required by California law.  The court agreed with the employer and adopted the federal regulatory standard, which is also used by the state agency charged with enforcing California’s wage and hour laws, and all allows rounding if the employees are fully compensated “over a period of time.”

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Of Counsel

Marc Koenigsberg is a business litigator, concentrating on employment law, commercial litigation and ADA defense. He provides experienced counsel in administrative, trial and appellate proceedings.  Marc has represented clients in whistleblower retaliation, sexual harassment, and racial discrimination lawsuits, and has assisted in the defense of over 100 ADA accessibility cases for both public and private entities, as well as compliance counseling on the Fair Housing Act, ADA Titles II and III, and related state laws.  He represents clients in both state and federal court....


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.