Ash Law Wins $1.875M Settlement in Remote Worker Time Rounding Case
Updated: 1 hour ago
A few minutes may not look like much on a single paycheck. Across hundreds or thousands of remote shifts, those minutes can turn into serious unpaid wages.
Ash Law recently obtained a $1.875 million settlement in an unlawful time rounding case involving remote workers. The case centered on a policy that rounded employee time to the nearest quarter-hour while also limiting when workers could clock in and clock out. That combination matters. Time rounding can be lawful in some circumstances, but it must be implemented neutrally and work fairly over time. When the rules consistently shave off otherwise compensable minutes, the policy can cross the line under federal wage law.
The settlement is a reminder that remote work does not weaken wage protections. If employees must be logged in, ready, and using employer systems to do their jobs, the time tied to that work booting up essential computer programs needs to be paid.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.
What the settlement was about
The case involved remote workers who alleged that their employer’s timekeeping system did not pay them for all time worked. The central claim focused on a quarter-hour rounding policy.
Under that kind of policy, recorded work time is adjusted to the nearest 15-minute mark. For example:
Actual time | Rounded time |
8:55 a.m. | 9:00 a.m. |
9:05 a.m. | 9:00 a.m. |
5:03 p.m. | 5:00 p.m. |
4:58 p.m. | 5:00 p.m. |
On paper, this may look neutral. Some punches round in the employee’s favor, and some round in the employer’s favor. Federal guidance has long recognized that rounding can be acceptable when it averages out so that employees are fully paid for all hours worked.
The problem alleged in this case was that the employer did not simply round time. The employer also restricted the times when employees could clock in and clock out. That is where a lawful-looking policy can become unlawful in practice.
Specifically, the core issue in this case was the allegations that the employer prohibited employees from clocking in more than seven minutes before their scheduled start time, but at the same time, required them to be clocked in by their scheduled start time. Similarly, the employer prohibited employees from clocking out before the end of their scheduled shift, but at the same time, allegededly prohibited them from clocking out more than seven minutes after the end of their shift. In such a situation, the rounding policy would repeatedly cut away paid time from the employee side of the ledger.
Why quarter-hour rounding can create wage problems
Time rounding rules were created in an era when employers often tracked time by hand or with mechanical punch clocks. Today, most employers can record time to the minute, and many can capture exact timestamps automatically. That does not make rounding illegal by itself, but it does make courts and regulators look closely at how the policy works.
A rounding policy becomes risky when it has a pattern. If employees usually lose six or seven minutes at the start of a shift, and then lose more minutes at the end, the effect adds up quickly.
Consider a remote worker who starts preparing for a shift before the official start time. They may need to:
Power on their computer
Connect to the internet or a secure network (perhaps a virtual private network)
Open required software
Load a phone or chat system
Review work queues and emails
Sign in to timekeeping tools
If that worker cannot clock in until seven minutes prior to their shift, and at the same time cannot clock-in after the scheduled shift start without discipline, the time spent getting systems ready will systematically be rounded away.
The same issue can happen at the end of a shift. A remote worker may need to finish a customer interaction, save notes, close out required systems, or complete logout steps. If the employer prohibits them from clocking out early, the time spent finishing those tasks may go unpaid.
The Fair Labor Standards Act, often called the FLSA, generally requires covered employers to pay nonexempt employees for all overtime hours worked. If rounding or pre-shift work consistently pushes unpaid overtime off the books, it can expose an employer to substantial back wage claims.
The legal issue is not rounding alone
The key legal question in most time rounding cases is not whether the employer used rounding. The question is whether the policy is neutral in practice.
A neutral rounding policy should not consistently benefit the employer. It should work in a way that, over time, employees are paid for all compensable work. If the rounding system sometimes rounds down and sometimes rounds up in a balanced way, it may comply with wage law.
But neutrality can break down when the employer controls the surrounding rules.
A rounding policy is not judged only by how it is written. It is judged by how it affects real paychecks.
That practical effect is what makes time rounding cases so fact-specific. Two companies may use the same rounding interval, but one policy may be lawful and another may create liability because of how employees actually work and how the employer enforces timekeeping rules.
Remote work does not erase compensable time
Remote work has changed where work happens, but it has not changed the basic wage rule: employees must be paid for work the employer knows about or has reason to know about.
That can include small blocks of time that happen before or after a scheduled shift. In remote jobs, those blocks often involve technology. Workers may need to load systems, log into software, connect through secure access tools, or wait for required platforms to become usable.
The additional claims in the settlement included allegations about unpaid time spent loading and logging into computer systems. These claims are especially important for remote employees because the workday often cannot begin until the worker completes several technical steps.
If those steps are required for the job, and if the employer benefits from them, the time is compensable. The exact analysis depends on the facts, including the type of work, the employer’s instructions, and whether the tasks are integral and indispensible to the employee’s principal job duties.
What workers should know about time rounding
Employees do not need to be wage-law experts to recognize warning signs. A timekeeping policy may deserve closer review if any of the following patterns appear:
The system always seems to round time in the employer’s favor
Employees must start software before they are allowed to clock in
Workers are told to be ready exactly at shift start
Clock-out times are limited even when work continues after the schedule shift ends
Login, loading, or shutdown time happens every shift
Pay stubs do not match the time employees believe they actually worked
Workers lose overtime because small blocks of time are excluded
Workers should also review wage statements when possible. A few rounded entries may not tell the whole story, but repeated losses can point to a larger issue.
The bigger lesson for remote work
A worker may be at home, but that does not make required work optional or noncompensable. When the employer controls the systems, the schedule, and the time records, it also carries responsibility for paying employees correctly.
The recent Ash Law settlement highlights a core wage principle: small amounts of time still count when they are part of the job. Rounding policies must be neutral. Clock-in rules must allow accurate reporting. Required login and loading time should not vanish simply because it happens before the first customer call or task.
For workers, the takeaway is to pay attention to patterns. On the other side of the coin, employers would be wise to test policies against real employee experience, not just written rules.
If you are subject to a time rounding policy, contact Ash Law for a free consultation and review of the policy.
Comments