[US] Home Depot workers file lost wage class action suit

In California, workers at Home Depot filed a suit claiming that the company’s electronic timekeeping system shorted their pay and took a subsequent trial court decision to the Court of Appeal, HRD reports.

A putative class action for unpaid wages against Home Depot USA, Inc. alleged two claims: unpaid minimum and overtime wages under section 5101 of California’s Labor Code and under the applicable wage order; and unfair competition.

Delmer Camp and Adriana Correa are the plaintiffs in the case of Camp et al. v. Home Depot, USA, Inc. They reportedly stated that, during the relevant period, “Kronos,” Home Depot’s electronic timekeeping system captured each minute that employees worked but - as a result of the company’s quarter-hour rounding policy - employees were paid wages for less time, in the aggregate, than the timekeeping system reflected.

Ms Correa worked for Home Depot from March 2015 to October 2015. She did not gain or lose minutes due to rounding, as her time and pay records showed. Mr Camp began working for Home Depot in March 2015. The records showed that, between March 2015 and October 2020, he suffered a total net loss of 470 minutes or approximately 7.83 hours of work time due to the rounding policy.

Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgement. It accepted that Mr Camp lost 470 minutes over around four-and-a-half years due to rounding but argued that its rounding practice was neutral and otherwise lawful under the ruling in the case of See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012). The company contended that Ms Correa had no standing to bring an unpaid wages claim because she lost no wages due to the rounding policy.

The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and entered judgment in Home Depot’s favour. The trial court reportedly found that Home Depot’s rounding practice was neutral on its face and compliant with the standard in See’s Candy. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed.

The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District reportedly reversed the judgment against Mr Camp and directed the trial court to deny Home Depot’s summary judgment motion with respect to Mr Camp. The appellate court dismissed Ms Correa’s appeal as abandoned since she conceded that she was overpaid and could not bring an unpaid wages claim.

The record reflected that Home Depot used a timekeeping system that recorded the time to the minute that an employee punched in or out during a shift, including for meal breaks and then applied a quarter-hour rounding policy to the employee’s total shift time. The record also showed that, between March 2015 and October 2020, Mr Camp lost more than seven hours of work time due to rounding.

The appellate court reportedly concluded that - based on this record - Home Depot failed to show that there was no triable issue of material fact on the issue of whether Mr Camp was paid for all the time that he worked.

Source: HRD

In California, workers at Home Depot filed a suit claiming that the company’s electronic timekeeping system shorted their pay and took a subsequent trial court decision to the Court of Appeal, HRD reports.

A putative class action for unpaid wages against Home Depot USA, Inc. alleged two claims: unpaid minimum and overtime wages under section 5101 of California’s Labor Code and under the applicable wage order; and unfair competition.

Delmer Camp and Adriana Correa are the plaintiffs in the case of Camp et al. v. Home Depot, USA, Inc. They reportedly stated that, during the relevant period, “Kronos,” Home Depot’s electronic timekeeping system captured each minute that employees worked but - as a result of the company’s quarter-hour rounding policy - employees were paid wages for less time, in the aggregate, than the timekeeping system reflected.

Ms Correa worked for Home Depot from March 2015 to October 2015. She did not gain or lose minutes due to rounding, as her time and pay records showed. Mr Camp began working for Home Depot in March 2015. The records showed that, between March 2015 and October 2020, he suffered a total net loss of 470 minutes or approximately 7.83 hours of work time due to the rounding policy.

Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgement. It accepted that Mr Camp lost 470 minutes over around four-and-a-half years due to rounding but argued that its rounding practice was neutral and otherwise lawful under the ruling in the case of See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012). The company contended that Ms Correa had no standing to bring an unpaid wages claim because she lost no wages due to the rounding policy.

The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and entered judgment in Home Depot’s favour. The trial court reportedly found that Home Depot’s rounding practice was neutral on its face and compliant with the standard in See’s Candy. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed.

The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District reportedly reversed the judgment against Mr Camp and directed the trial court to deny Home Depot’s summary judgment motion with respect to Mr Camp. The appellate court dismissed Ms Correa’s appeal as abandoned since she conceded that she was overpaid and could not bring an unpaid wages claim.

The record reflected that Home Depot used a timekeeping system that recorded the time to the minute that an employee punched in or out during a shift, including for meal breaks and then applied a quarter-hour rounding policy to the employee’s total shift time. The record also showed that, between March 2015 and October 2020, Mr Camp lost more than seven hours of work time due to rounding.

The appellate court reportedly concluded that - based on this record - Home Depot failed to show that there was no triable issue of material fact on the issue of whether Mr Camp was paid for all the time that he worked.

Source: HRD