Employment – Timeclock rounding – Wage Act

Listen to this article

Where a complaint was filed alleging that the defendants engaged in improper “time shaving” that resulted in employees not receiving their full earned wages and working uncompensated overtime, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be allowed because the defendants’ timekeeping system did not result over a reasonable period of time in failure to compensate employees properly for all the time they actually worked.

“Plaintiff Joshalyn Darden (‘Ms. Darden’) brings this action against Defendants Colbea Enterprises, L.L.C. (‘Colbea’) and Andrew Delli Carpini (‘Mr. Carpini’) (collectively, ‘Defendants’), alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act (‘the Wage Act’) (Counts I and III), the Fair Labor Standards Act (the ‘FLSA’) (Count II), and for common law breach of contract (Count IV) and unjust enrichment (Count V). … The core claim is that Defendants engaged in improper ‘time shaving,’ which resulted in employees not receiving their full earned wages and working uncompensated overtime. …

“Defendants argue summary judgment is appropriate because both federal and state law permit neutral timeclock rounding, and because they contend the evidence demonstrates that their rounding practices are neutral. …

“… Defendants contend that Massachusetts regulations permit time rounding to the nearest fifteen-minute increment where the practice is neutral, and that this regulation applies to the Wage Act. … Ms. Darden argues that because 454 Mass. Code Regs. §27.07(3) (the ‘Regulation’) was promulgated under the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law and the Massachusetts Overtime Law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151), it does not apply to her claims under the Wage Act. …

“Ms. Darden contends that the Regulation cannot apply to the Wage Act, but such a holding would effectively overturn the Regulation. …

“… As such, timeclock rounding is permissible under the Wage Act, subject to the requirements under the Regulation. …

“Having determined that the Wage Act permits timeclock rounding, the key question is whether Defendants’ rounding practices are neutral. Ms. Darden concedes that Defendants’ policy is neutral on its face, instead arguing that Defendants’ rounding is not neutrally applied. …

“There is no dispute that the majority of employees benefited from Defendants’ timeclock rounding. …

“Here, the undisputed statistical analysis demonstrates that Defendants’ rounding policy is neutrally applied. …

“Additionally, that Ms. Darden as an individual suffered losses from Defendants’ timekeeping policy is insufficient to demonstrate that the policy fails to satisfy the neutrality requirement. … There is no dispute that Ms. Darden is an outlier: 99.399% of the 1,165 analyzed employees experienced more beneficial rounding outcomes than Ms. Darden. …

“In the face of Defendants’ undisputed evidence that the majority of employees benefit from this rounding policy, Ms. Darden fails to identify any evidence to suggest that Defendants’ policy results in a systematic underpayment of wages, such as disciplinary policies that impacted the rounding, evidence of monitoring by Defendants to ensure that the practice was beneficial to the employer, or evidence of supervisors’ editing time records. …

“Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Ms. Darden has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on whether Defendants’ timekeeping system did not result over a reasonable period of time in failure to compensate its employees properly for all the time they have actually worked. …

“Defendants argue that because their rounding practice is neutral and permissible under the FLSA and Wage Act, all of Ms. Darden’s remaining claims fail as a matter of law.”

Darden v. Colbea Enterprises, L.L.C., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-180-25) (15 pages) (Murphy, J.) (Civil Action No. 23-11540-BEM) (March 26, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.