Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Donohue v. AMN Services: No Rounding of Meal-Period Time Records

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 14, 2026

Meal-period compliance is measured against precise timing rules. Donohue explains why a timekeeping practice that may be tolerated in another context cannot erase meal-period violations.

AMN’s electronic records

AMN used a timekeeping system that rounded punch times to the nearest ten-minute increment. The employee challenged the practice as applied to meal periods and also disputed how the employer treated records showing meals that were short, late, or missing.

Why rounding did not fit meal periods

The Court emphasized that the governing wage order and statutes impose exact meal-period requirements. Rounding could conceal a noncompliant meal or make a short meal appear compliant. The Court therefore held that employers cannot round meal-period time punches.

The rebuttable presumption

When an employer’s records show no meal, a meal shorter than thirty minutes, or a meal beginning after the end of the fifth hour, a rebuttable presumption of a violation arises. The employer may present evidence that the employee was provided a compliant meal but voluntarily chose otherwise.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and directed further proceedings. It did not hold that every noncompliant-looking punch automatically establishes liability; it defined the evidentiary starting point and rejected the rounding mechanism.

Key takeaways

• Meal-period punches should be recorded to the minute.
• Facially noncompliant records create a rebuttable presumption.
• The employer may rebut with evidence of a compliant opportunity and voluntary employee choice.
• Accurate recordkeeping is central to both compliance and proof.