A recent concern in the healthcare sector, specifically hospitals, is a large class action wage hour claim in the state of Washington, Bennett v. Providence Health & Services. In this instance, a review of the order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs shows that the case was based on what the court determined to be “unlawful timeclock rounding” and “missed second meal periods.” 

About the Case

The Court determined that Providence required employees to clock in at the beginning of the shift, in/out for meal breaks, and clock out at the end of their shift using the Kronos system. Providence also gave “caregivers the ability to, and required caregivers to edit their Kronos timecard to be sure that the Kronos accurately records report hours worked.” 

As many hospitals and systems do, Providence used a rounding policy to capture time for payroll. But the court determined, based on expert witness testimony, that its rounding system “is not neutral.” 

DOL Guidelines – Rounding

While the case itself is decided on Washington state law in relationship to wage hour, the court does look to the federal DOL guidelines regarding rounding. The court, through the various expert witness testimony, found that the rounding system consistently, though not all the time, favored the employer and that the rounding system was not neutral because it did not “average out over a period of time” equally between the employer and employee. 

The system did favor the employer more frequently than the employee.  Approximately 40% of the rounding favored the employer with the remaining benefitting the employee or was neutral.

The success of this claim would appear to indicate that employers utilizing rounding as part of their practice should periodically audit the rounding records to determine that over a period of time the rounding benefits work out evenly or to the advantage of employees.  The ability to show good faith compliance, for example through an annual review, would assist in the defense of any claim where rounding is involved. 

The second claim in the Providence case goes directly to Washington law as “Washington places broad obligation on its employers to not merely provide a duty-free, uninterrupted second meal break to employees who work more than 10 hours in a shift but to promote the right.”  The Court found that Providence did not advertise or educate on the right to a second meal period and that second meal periods were consistently unavailable to employees through the process and as such, Providence had violated Washington law. 

The Big Picture

With highly sophisticated payroll systems and automated processes, it can be argued that the premise that made rounding acceptable is fading. This will likely lead to stricter future enforcement. Healthcare employers need to assess their wage hour processes and practices in light of these changing expectations.