A practice that millions of California workers encounter every pay period — having their clock-in and clock-out times rounded to the nearest few minutes — may soon be declared unlawful. With Camp v. Home Depot USA Inc. now fully briefed before the California Supreme Court and oral argument on the horizon, employers face a simple question: is rounding still worth the risk?

The Stakes Are Enormous

The financial exposure from time-rounding practices can be staggering. California allows unpaid wage claims to reach back four years, and the penalties stack quickly. Wage statement violations, waiting-time penalties, and Private Attorneys General Act claims can multiply a company's liability well beyond the underlying underpayments. For a large employer processing millions of shifts, even a few dollars of lost time per shift can translate into eight-figure damages.

Yet many employers continue to round — and every pay period that passes deepens the potential exposure.

Technology Has Outpaced the Justification

At the heart of the legal debate is a straightforward tension: modern timekeeping systems already record exact punch times down to the second. When Home Depot rounded employee punches to the nearest quarter hour, its own payroll system had already captured the precise data. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly seized on this point, observing in recent rulings that technological advances have eroded whatever efficiency rationale once supported rounding.

This matters because the original appellate framework that approved rounding — established in See's Candy Shops Inc. v. Superior Court in 2012 — assumed that rounding served a practical administrative purpose. If that purpose no longer exists, neither does the legal foundation.

A Pattern of Supreme Court Skepticism

The California Supreme Court has not yet ruled directly on workday time rounding, but its trajectory is telling. It has rejected the idea that employers can leave small amounts of work time uncompensated, and it has prohibited rounding when applied to meal break records. Both rulings emphasized the same themes: California law demands payment for all time worked, and technology has made precision feasible.

The appellate court in Camp connected those dots, finding that a neutral rounding policy does not automatically satisfy the obligation to pay for every minute — particularly when the employer already has exact data in hand. The plaintiff in that case lost over seven hours of compensable time during the class period due to rounding.

What Employers Should Do Now

Rather than waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling, employers should take a hard look at their current practices:

• Audit your timekeeping system. If it already captures exact punch times before rounding, you are in the most vulnerable position — the same posture that cost Home Depot at the appellate level.
• Evaluate your rounding increment. Larger increments (such as rounding to the nearest 15 minutes) create greater underpayment risk than smaller ones (such as 6 minutes). The Supreme Court could draw a line based on increment size.
• Consider eliminating rounding entirely. If the policy is neutral and the technology captures exact times, the administrative benefit of rounding is minimal while the legal risk is growing.
• Quantify your exposure. Calculate the potential liability across your workforce, factoring in the four-year look back period and derivative penalty claims, so leadership can make an informed decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Camp should set the definitive standard for time rounding in California. Employers that prepare now will be positioned to respond swiftly — those that don't may find themselves scrambling to contain liability that has been accumulating for years.