• The Complex Litigator Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • CLASS RE-ACTION PODCAST
  • MCLE
Menu

The Complex Litigator

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number
a California-centric collection of comments and resources about complex litigation and class action practice

The Complex Litigator

  • The Complex Litigator Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • CLASS RE-ACTION PODCAST
  • MCLE

It's a day ending in "y," so rounding is cool says AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court

June 25, 2018 H. Scott Leviant
CA Seal.jpg

Set aside, for a brief moment, the legal arguments about rounding in the context of California law (I know...it's a legal blog, but I can digress because I say so).  Here's what I don't get in the class context: how does it pass the smell test to say to some employees, who lost some wages from rounding, that it's cool because their money basically went to some other employees.  Using the rationale of rounding jurisprudence, I think I could make wage system that randomly takes money from half a workforce and gives it to the other half.  It's neutral as applied by definition.  It's random so it's "fair" on its face.  What's wrong with that?  And if it's not okay, why is rounding okay.

Anyhow, in AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court (June 25, 2018), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) held that rounding was proper in a system the Court characterized as "neutral on its face and as applied."  Slip op., at 2.  On undisputed facts, it was shown that slightly more employees lost time than gained time, but the gainers did slightly better in aggregate.  Slip op., at 4-5.

After discussing federal decisions that approved of rounding in the aggregate, the Court said this:

Because California’s wage laws are patterned on federal statutes, in determining employee wage claims, California courts may look to federal authorities for guidance in interpreting state labor provisions. 

Slip op. at 11.  I don't think that's right, at least not as stated.  California extensively diverges from federal wage and hour law in many areas.  The California Supreme Court has issued a number of decisions rejecting application of federal law in a variety of contexts, noting in several cases that Wage Orders must basically state express incorporation of a federal standard before it will be read into a Wage Order.  Notably, and I think relevant to rounding, California's definition of what constitutes compensable time differs from the federal standard.  What no Court has yet attempted to explain is why rounding is not analyzed in the way other wage and hour obligations are analyzed when comparing California law to federal law.  Given the undeniably employee-centric nature of California wage and hour law, I find this at least peculiar.

This issue will receive more attention before it is settled I predict.

Jeffrey P. Fuchsman and Zareh A. Jaltorossian of Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt represented the successful petitioner. 

By H. Scott Leviant. Editor and site author H. Scott Leviant can be found on Google+, Twitter and LinkedIn, among other places.

In Class Actions: New Opinions, Class Actions: Wage & Hour Tags Court of Appeal, Wage & Hour, Rounding
← Inconsistent Spanish and English arbitration clauses leads to invalidation in Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc.Episode 18 of the Class Re-Action Podcast is now live! →

Subscribe to The Complex Litigator RSS feed.

Troester v. Starbucks Corporation Briefs/Links (with Opinion Link)


The Complex Litigator Home
I'm moving to an up-and-coming employment law firm...
about 5 hours ago
In Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing, Ninth Circuit extends Syed, holding that FCRA precludes all surplussage in background check disclosures
about 2 weeks ago
Petition for Review of PAGA decision denied in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA
about 4 months ago
Check out the September 12, 2018 edition of the Daily Journal for a pithy comment on Troester
about 5 months ago
Central District of California Local Rule 23-3 finally addressed in published Ninth Circuit opinion
about 5 months ago
Petition for Rehearing Denied in Troester v. Starbucks; Minimal change to Opinion
about 5 months ago
Episode 19 of the Class Re-Action Podcast is Now Available
about 6 months ago
BREAKING: Opinion in Troester v. Starbucks now available -- Holds No Federal De Minimis Defense to CA Wage and Hour Laws and no CA De Minimis Defense on Facts in Record
about 6 months ago
BREAKING NEWS: Troester v. Starbucks opinion will be released tomorrow
about 6 months ago
Eastern District of California, reeling under its load, requests additional judgeships
about 7 months ago

  • I'm moving to an up-and-coming employment law firm... https://t.co/zFClK8nvGf
    about 4 hours ago
  • In Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing, Ninth Circuit extends Syed, holding that FCRA precludes all surplussge in backgro… https://t.co/3QsoYtA0Fl
    about 2 weeks ago
  • Twitter Permanently Bans GayPatriot Bruce Carroll, Cites Kafka for Precedent https://t.co/rmC208kTsY #VodkaPundit v… https://t.co/Wvd7YgRdAZ
    about 4 months ago
  • RT @BreitbartNews: If the BB account gets banned for poasting this link, it's still worth it. https://t.co/U1mlXBuAmD
    about 4 months ago


  • February 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (1)
  • October 2018 (1)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (6)
  • June 2018 (3)
  • May 2018 (7)
  • April 2018 (3)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • September 2017 (6)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (2)
  • January 2017 (1)
  • December 2016 (5)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (3)
  • September 2016 (7)
  • August 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (3)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (3)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • September 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (4)
  • June 2014 (3)
  • May 2014 (3)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (8)
  • January 2014 (4)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • November 2013 (3)
  • October 2013 (3)
  • September 2013 (6)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (4)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (6)
  • March 2013 (13)
  • February 2013 (7)
  • January 2013 (3)
  • December 2012 (7)
  • November 2012 (5)
  • October 2012 (5)
  • September 2012 (5)
  • August 2012 (4)
  • July 2012 (1)
  • June 2012 (5)
  • May 2012 (5)
  • April 2012 (9)
  • March 2012 (2)
  • February 2012 (7)
  • January 2012 (13)
  • December 2011 (2)
  • November 2011 (4)
  • October 2011 (4)
  • September 2011 (3)
  • August 2011 (4)
  • July 2011 (7)
  • June 2011 (9)
  • May 2011 (7)
  • April 2011 (19)
  • March 2011 (6)
  • February 2011 (9)
  • January 2011 (15)
  • December 2010 (16)
  • November 2010 (12)
  • October 2010 (14)
  • September 2010 (14)
  • August 2010 (18)
  • July 2010 (16)
  • June 2010 (11)
  • May 2010 (15)
  • April 2010 (25)
  • March 2010 (19)
  • February 2010 (12)
  • January 2010 (17)
  • December 2009 (11)
  • November 2009 (16)
  • October 2009 (19)
  • September 2009 (21)
  • August 2009 (16)
  • July 2009 (16)
  • June 2009 (16)
  • May 2009 (21)
  • April 2009 (13)
  • March 2009 (17)
  • February 2009 (21)
  • January 2009 (22)
  • December 2008 (14)
  • November 2008 (11)
  • October 2008 (12)
  • September 2008 (12)
  • August 2008 (19)
  • July 2008 (26)
  • June 2008 (28)
  • May 2008 (36)
  • April 2008 (30)
  • March 2008 (3)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

note: although this site contains no offers to provide legal services, is not intended as such, and is not such an offer, some jurisdictions may nevertheless assert that this site constitutes an advertisement by an attorney.  please be aware of the possibility of such a classification as you view this site.

powered by squarespace