California Meal Break Law After Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC: Rounding and the Presumption of Violations
The California Supreme Court addressed two major wage-and-hour issues in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC:
- Whether employers may round time punches for meal periods under California law.
- Whether time records showing noncompliant meal periods create a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations at summary judgment when there is no indication of premium pay.
The Court’s decision generally favors employees on both issues.
California Meal Period Requirements
Under Labor Code § 512(a) and applicable wage orders (including IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 § 11(A) for covered industries), employers must provide:
- An uninterrupted 30-minute meal period that begins by the end of the fifth hour of work, and
- A second 30-minute meal period that begins by the end of the tenth hour of work (when applicable).
Rounding Time Punches for Meal Periods Circumvents the Law
The Court held that rounding meal period punches (to 5-minute increments, 10-minute increments, or quarter-hours) can mask short or late meal periods and undermine meal period protections.
Example of prohibited rounding
If an employee clocks out at 12:05 p.m. and clocks back in at 12:25 p.m., an employer cannot round the punches to 12:00 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. to make it look like a compliant 30-minute meal period. Rounding can make noncompliant meal periods appear compliant on paper.
The Court’s concern is that rounding can avoid triggering premium pay even when the employee lost protected meal time.
Premium Pay for Short, Missed, or Late Meal Periods
Under Labor Code § 226.7(c), if an employer does not provide a compliant meal period, the employer must pay:
One additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that a compliant meal period is not provided.
The Court emphasized that a compliant meal period on one day does not “offset” a short, missed, or late meal period on another day. In other words: comply with meal periods or pay the premium.
Time Records Showing Noncompliant Meal Periods Create a Rebuttable Presumption
The Court also held that when time records show short, missed, or late meal periods and there is no indication of premium pay, a rebuttable presumption of a meal period violation arises—even at the summary judgment stage.
This presumption exists because the employer is responsible for maintaining accurate timekeeping records. If records show noncompliance, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption.
How Employers Can Rebut the Presumption
The rebuttable presumption does not require employers to “police” meal periods. Employers are generally liable only if they fail to provide the opportunity for a compliant meal period.
Employers may rebut the presumption by showing, for example:
- The employee was paid the meal period premium for a short, missed, or late meal period, or
- The employee voluntarily chose to skip, delay, or shorten the meal period (and the employer provided a lawful mechanism for recording time and premiums).
So, What Does This Mean for Employees?
- If your time records show short, missed, or late meal periods, those records may support a presumption of a violation unless the employer can rebut it.
- Rounding meal period punches should not be used to make noncompliant meal breaks appear compliant.
- When a meal period violation occurs, the law generally requires a premium: one additional hour of pay for each workday with a noncompliant meal period.
If you suspect meal break violations (including rounding practices that hide short or late meal periods), consider documenting your time records and speaking with a wage-and-hour attorney about potential claims.