Home Depot Asks California Supreme Court to Revisit Time-Clock Rounding Ruling

Home Depot has asked the California Supreme Court to revisit a controversial appeals court ruling that found its time-clock rounding practices unlawful when precise clock-in and clock-out data was available. The company filed its opening brief on January 18, 2026, in the long-running Camp v. Home Depot litigation, challenging a Sixth District Court of Appeal decision that could reshape employer timekeeping across the state.

The Camp appellate decision concluded that Home Depot’s practice of rounding employees’ total work time was unlawful because the employer captured exact times and had the capacity to pay on a minute-by-minute basis. That holding departs from earlier rounding precedents and has alarmed employer-side counsel and bar groups who say it could expose a wide swath of businesses to class actions and PAGA claims seeking back pay for fractional minutes.

Home Depot’s appeal comes after the California Supreme Court granted review of the Camp decision, meaning the high court will decide whether employers may legally round total work time when precise timestamps exist. Employer-side commentators and law firms, including authors from Sheppard Mullin, have prepared amicus support arguing the appellate ruling departs from longstanding rounding law and could burden payroll systems and litigation exposure for many employers that rely on rounding for timekeeping.

The dispute sits against a backdrop of recent California high-court decisions shaping wage-and-hour law. Cases such as Troester v. Starbucks and Donohue v. AMN are part of the legal context courts will weigh in assessing the legality of rounding policies and what constitutes compensable time. The Camp ruling narrows how rounding can be applied when employers record exact start and stop times, suggesting that any available minute-level payroll capacity could render rounding impermissible.

For workers, an upholding of Camp could mean improved recovery of unpaid wages for short increments of time that were previously lost under rounding systems. For employers and payroll teams, the consequences could be significant: companies that currently round total work time might need to switch to minute-by-minute pay, overhaul timekeeping software, or face heightened exposure to class action and PAGA litigation and potential large back-pay awards.

Procedurally, Home Depot’s opening brief marks the beginning of a new round of briefing and anticipated amicus activity at the California Supreme Court. If the court narrows or overturns the appellate ruling, employers that use rounding may retain more flexibility in their timekeeping practices. If the court affirms the Camp decision broadly, employers that capture precise times will likely need to reassess rounding policies statewide.

The outcome will matter to payroll administrators, HR leaders, and hourly employees who watch how small increments of time translate into wages. The Supreme Court’s next steps and briefing schedule will determine how swiftly employers must act to update timekeeping systems or prepare for increased litigation risk.