The article's load-bearing claims — the text of 29 CFR §785.48(b), the California chain from See's Candy through Camp and Woodworth, and Camp's current pending status at the California Supreme Court (S277518) — verify against primary sources. The official California Supreme Court "Issues Pending" list dated April 10, 2026 still lists Camp with no decision issued, no oral argument scheduled. Camp's verbatim "if an employer, as in this case..." quote matches the slip opinion exactly. The Utne $72.5M settlement composition (41% pre-shift / 50% closing / 9% rounding sub-class) matches Reuters/Yahoo Finance coverage of the settlement. Two claims are marked ⚠ Partial: the Donohue dicta paraphrase about technology and "still warranted" is supported by Tier 2 sources but the verbatim slip-opinion text was not extracted; the Frlekin headline figure ($29.9M) is the class-fund amount while HR Dive's coverage uses ~$30M / $30.4M including administration. No claim is contradicted by sources.
9 claims
29 CFR §785.48(b) permits rounding to the nearest 5 minutes, one-tenth of an hour (6 min), or quarter hour (15 min), provided the practice does not, "over a period of time," fail to compensate for all time worked.
29 CFR §785.48(a) — the "grace period" provision — permits unpaid early-clock-in / late-clock-out only when the employee performs no work during the period.
29 CFR §785.47 — federal de minimis doctrine — permits employers to disregard "insubstantial or insignificant" periods of time outside scheduled working hours.
29 CFR §516.2(a)(7) requires employers to record "hours worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek."
29 CFR §516.5 requires 3-year retention of payroll records (rounded totals, regular and overtime rates, pay-period dates).
29 CFR §516.6 requires 2-year retention of underlying time records (raw punches, work schedules, wage-rate tables).
California Labor Code §510 establishes the 1.5×/2× overtime structure and references "all hours worked."
Single-source verification — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov is the authoritative Tier 1 source for California statutes.
California Labor Code §512 establishes the meal-period thresholds (30-minute minimum, beginning before the fifth hour).
Single-source verification — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov is Tier 1.
California IWC Wage Order §11 (and Wage Order No. 7 for mercantile) defines hours worked and meal-period thresholds.
Cited per the Camp opinion's analysis of Wage Order No. 7-2001 §11070 subd. 2(G) ("hours worked"); single-source DIR Tier 1.
1 claim
California Rules of Court 8.1115(e)(1) provides that an opinion under California Supreme Court review remains published and may be cited only for persuasive value during review.
Rule effective July 1, 2016, eliminated automatic depublication on grant of review; under (e)(1), an opinion under review has no binding precedential effect and may be cited for potentially persuasive value only.
11 claims
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) — when employer records are inadequate, an employee may establish unpaid hours by "just and reasonable inference," shifting the burden to the employer.
Citation, year, and burden-shifting holding all confirmed. The "just and reasonable inference" language is the operative phrase from Justice Murphy's opinion.
East v. Bullock's, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (D. Ariz. 1998) — early federal §785.48(b) summary-judgment baseline; neutral rounding satisfied the regulation.
Tier 2 (Justia) only — the District of Arizona does not publish slip opinions for 1998 decisions on its own site. Research-stage verification confirmed plaintiff catalogued 28 paychecks (24 with sub-15-min discrepancies); summary judgment for employer.
White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869 (6th Cir. 2012) — auto-deduction lawful when (a) employee notified of exception procedure, (b) procedure functions in practice, (c) the specific employee did not use it.
Citation (699 F.3d 869, 6th Cir. 2012) and three-element test confirmed.
See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012) — first California appellate decision adopting the federal §785.48(b) standard; California Supreme Court denied review and depublication in February 2013.
Tier 2 (Justia + Leagle) — Court of Appeal opinions of this vintage are mirrored on Justia from the official reporter. Camp slip opinion (verified) cites See's Candy at 210 Cal.App.4th 889 with the same holding.
Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016) — neutral quarter-hour rounding lawful under FLSA; plaintiff claimed $15.02 under-compensation.
Citation, plaintiff Andre Corbin, and $15.02 figure all confirmed. Ninth Circuit's own datastore is Tier 1.
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829 (2018) — California has not adopted the federal de minimis doctrine for state wage claims.
Citation correct; doctrinal predicate role for Camp confirmed via Camp's own express reliance on Troester (verified in slip opinion).
AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. App. 5th 1014 (2018) — net-positive across the workforce satisfies the See's Candy standard even where individual employees lose time.
Citation correct; case examined data across two AHMC facilities, both net-positive for the workforce in aggregate. The article's "workforce as a whole" framing correctly generalizes across both facilities; it does not misattribute one facility's data.
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 58 (2021) — rounding does NOT apply to meal periods; time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal-period violations.
Core holding (no rounding for meal periods + rebuttable presumption) verified against the official slip-opinion URL on supreme.courts.ca.gov and cited as binding precedent inside Camp's slip opinion (verified).
Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) — when the employer's timekeeping system can capture exact minutes, rounding violates California's "all the time worked" mandate.
https://www.gmsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Camp-v.-Home-Depot.pdf (Sixth District slip opinion)
Citation, holding, and case background verified directly against the certified-for-publication slip opinion (filed 10/24/22).
Eisele v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 643 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (D. Or. 2022) — federal district court held time-clock rounding not permitted under Oregon wage law.
Citation (643 F. Supp. 3d 1166) and holding confirmed; Judge Hernández found Oregon law requires payment for all hours worked on an individual basis, making time-clock rounding impermissible.
Woodworth v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, 93 Cal. App. 5th 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) — extends Camp's reasoning to tenth-of-an-hour (6-minute) rounding when exact-time capture exists.
Citation and holding confirmed; case extends Camp to the smallest §785.48(b) increment.
2 claims
Corbin — verbatim quote — the court rejected the argument that an employer must "un-round" each pay period, calling it "a mini actuarial process at the time of payroll [that] would defeat the purpose of rounding altogether."
Verbatim "mini actuarial process" language confirmed via secondary search and Proskauer practitioner summary; the phrase appears in the 9th Circuit slip opinion at 821 F.3d at 1077.
Camp — verbatim quote (appears in both Mistake #1 and the California Chain section) — "If an employer, as in this case, 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."
Slip-opinion wording matches verbatim. The opinion's sentence reads as a continuation ("if an employer, as in this case…"); the article correctly capitalizes "If" since the article uses it as a quoted standalone sentence, which is a conventional quote-start.
1 claim
Donohue dicta — as technology evolves, the "practical advantages of rounding policies may diminish," and the Court "has never decided the validity of the rounding standard articulated in See's Candy."
Camp slip opinion p. 2 ("[Donohue] has since stated, however, that it 'has never decided the validity of the rounding standard articulated in See's Candy.'"): https://www.gmsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Camp-v.-Home-Depot.pdf
The article paraphrases Donohue's technology dicta rather than quoting verbatim, which is the safe posture. The "has never decided the validity" phrasing is verbatim in Camp's slip opinion at p. 2 (verified) and is properly attributed to Donohue at 11 Cal.5th at 72. The cross-check via the Camp slip opinion's express quotation resolves the dicta on the load-bearing point.
1 claim
Camp — plaintiff Delmer Camp's records showed he was short-paid 470 minutes (~7.8 hours) over the class period; Home Depot used quarter-hour rounding.
Slip opinion confirms 470 minutes / "approximately 7.83 hours" net loss for plaintiff Camp; Home Depot used quarter-hour rounding via Kronos.
3 claims
Camp v. Home Depot (S277518) remains PENDING at the California Supreme Court as of 2026-05-23 — review granted February 2023, briefing complete September 25, 2023, no decision issued, no oral argument scheduled.
https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2026-04/pendingissues-civil%20-%20041026.pdf (April 10, 2026 "Issues Pending before the California Supreme Court in Civil Cases")
The April 10, 2026 official California Supreme Court "Issues Pending" PDF lists Camp v. Home Depot S277518 verbatim: "Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Under California law, are employers permitted to use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees' work time for payroll purposes?" No decision, no oral argument scheduled. This is the SINGLE MOST LOAD-BEARING CURRENCY CLAIM in the article and it holds. The article's reference to "mid-2025" Issues Pending list (July 11, 2025) is consistent with the more recent April 10, 2026 list which still lists Camp as pending.
Woodworth (S281717) — California Supreme Court granted review November 1, 2023; held under grant-and-hold pending Camp.
https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/cr110123.pdf (Nov 1, 2023 conference results)
Grant-and-hold posture confirmed. Woodworth does not appear on the April 10, 2026 Issues Pending list because grant-and-hold cases are not separately listed there — the issue will be resolved via Camp's disposition.
DOL has not amended §785.48(b); 2026 WHD enforcement priorities center on overtime, child labor, and H-1B compliance — rounding is not on the agenda.
Negative claim — eCFR confirms §785.48(b) text unchanged from the historical version. The 2026 WHD priorities are sourced from the FY2026 budget + 2025–2026 Capital Summit statements rather than a single regulatory document; methodology accepts this as Partial for the priorities sub-claim. The "no rounding-specific federal amendment" portion is hard-verified via eCFR.
1 claim
California Supreme Court granted review in Camp February 2023; briefing complete September 2023.
GMSR case tracker (Tier 2, but authored by the appellate firm tracking the case for amicus purposes) lists "Petition granted: 2/1/2023" and "Case fully briefed: 9/25/2023." Multiple secondary sources confirm.
1 claim
2024–2025 California legislative session closed October 2025 with no bill specifically codifying or restricting time-clock rounding.
Negative claim — verified against a search of California's legislative information system for keywords "rounding" / "time clock rounding" in 2024–2025 sessions; no bill identified. Negative claims about legislative non-action are inherently difficult to disprove exhaustively; this is the methodology's "Tier 2/3 acceptance" case (no Tier 1 affirmative source can exist for non-action).
1 claim
Utne v. Home Depot — $72.5M settlement covering ~272,000 California workers since March 2012; ~41% pre-shift apron prep, ~50% closing-shift waiting time, ~9% rounding sub-class.
All numbers — total ($72.5M), class size (~272,000), and three-sub-class composition (41% / 50% / 9%) — match Reuters/Yahoo Finance coverage of the settlement filing. Tier 3 acceptable per methodology (court record is sealed/paywalled at PACER for unauthenticated access). The article's "rounding sub-class ~9% of the fund" framing is faithful.
2 claims
Frlekin v. Apple — $29.9M settlement, approved August 13, 2022 (California bag-check class action).
The settlement amount is reported variably across sources — HR Dive and Top Class Actions cite $30.4M total (including administration costs) or ~$30M rounded; the $29.9M figure in the article is the class-fund amount net of administration. Both are defensible. Methodology source-conflict rule: equally authoritative sources don't conflict here (it's the same underlying settlement with different framings of net vs gross); the article uses the narrower class-fund figure consistently. Suggested phrasing tightening: the article could note "$29.9M class fund ($30.4M including administration costs)" in a footnote, but the headline figure is not wrong.
AHMC Healthcare — audit of two facilities showed roughly half of employees gained time and half lost time, with the workforce as a whole netting a gain.
Research-stage verification confirmed two facilities both net-positive (Facility A: 49.3% gained / 49.5% lost / 1.2% unaffected, net +1,379 hours; Facility B: 47.1% gained / 52.1% lost / 0.8% unaffected, also net gain). The article's "roughly half/half, workforce as a whole netting a gain" framing correctly generalizes across both facilities and does not misattribute facility-specific data.
1 claim
Article attributes Camp's pending status to the California Supreme Court's official "Issues Pending before the California Supreme Court in Civil Cases" list.
Article cites the July 11, 2025 list; the more recent April 10, 2026 list still lists Camp. Both are official Tier 1 documents on supreme.courts.ca.gov. The article's "still on the Court's official 'Issues Pending' list as of mid-2025" framing is accurate and could be updated to "as of April 2026" for additional currency on the next pass, but is not inaccurate as written.
53 unique sources cited across the report — click to audit any claim directly against its evidence.
Camp slip opinion p. 2 ("[Donohue] has since stated, however, that it 'has never decided the validity of the rounding standard articulated in See's Candy.'"): https://www.gmsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Camp-v.-Home-Depot.pdf
https://www.gmsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Camp-v.-Home-Depot.pdf (Sixth District slip opinion)
https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2026-04/pendingissues-civil%20-%20041026.pdf (April 10, 2026 "Issues Pending before the California Supreme Court in Civil Cases")
https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/cr110123.pdf (Nov 1, 2023 conference results)
Three claims are marked ⚠ Partial. None contradicts a source; none requires article revision. They are listed below for transparency per methodology.
Donohue technology dicta (paraphrased). The article paraphrases rather than verbatim-quotes — the safe posture. The cross-link via Camp's slip opinion to Donohue at 11 Cal.5th 72 ("has never decided the validity of the rounding standard articulated in See's Candy") is the load-bearing dicta point and is verbatim-confirmed via Camp. Suggested revision: none required. If a future revision adds a direct quote, pull the exact words from the Donohue slip opinion PDF at https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2022-08/S253677.pdf rather than re-paraphrasing.
Frlekin v. Apple settlement amount. The article cites $29.9M; HR Dive cites $30.4M including administration costs. These describe the same settlement at different framings (class fund vs gross). Suggested revision: optional. Consider adding a parenthetical: "$29.9M class fund ($30.4M including administration costs)" — non-essential.
2024–2025 California legislative session closure (negative claim). No Tier 1 affirmative source can exist for legislative non-action; verified via leginfo.legislature.ca.gov keyword search. Suggested revision: none required. The article's framing ("no bill specifically codifying or restricting time- clock rounding") is accurate and appropriately scoped.
2026 WHD enforcement priorities. The "no §785.48(b) regulatory amendment" portion is hard-verified via eCFR. The "WHD priorities center on overtime, child labor, H-1B" portion comes from multiple agency-adjacent sources rather than a single regulatory document. Suggested revision: none required. The negative claim about §785.48(b) (the load-bearing piece) is solid; the positive enumeration of priorities is shoulder context, not load-bearing.
Every claim above is anchored to a clickable source — click any to verify what we said directly against the evidence.
See our fact-checking methodology for the standards this report follows.
Clockspot is online time clock software for small businesses — the simplest way to track employee time, with GPS location tracking, PTO accruals, job costing, and overtime calculation. Used in all 50 states since 2007.
Want to simplify how your team tracks time? See how Clockspot works.