More than four years after the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the case remains one of the most consequential wage-and-hour opinions governing meal period compliance in California. As of December 2025, Donohue continues to shape how courts evaluate meal period claims, how employers must maintain time records, and how evidentiary burdens are allocated at summary judgment and trial. Recent appellate decisions have reaffirmed Donohue’s framework, underscoring its continuing relevance across industries.
In Donohue, the Supreme Court addressed two related issues arising from an employer’s timekeeping practices. First, the Court held that employers may not apply rounding practices to employee meal-period punches. Unlike regular work time, meal periods are governed by strict statutory and wage-order requirements, and rounding can obscure whether a meal period was timely, uninterrupted, and compliant. The Court concluded that rounding meal punches is incompatible with the employer’s duty to maintain accurate records of meal periods and impermissibly masks violations that the Labor Code and wage orders are designed to reveal.
Second, and more significantly for ongoing litigation, the Court articulated an evidentiary presumption tied to meal-period time records. Where an employer’s records show a missed, late, or short meal period and no meal period premium is paid, those records give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the employer failed to provide a compliant meal period. Once that presumption arises, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that it nonetheless provided a legally compliant meal period by relieving the employee of duty and that the employee voluntarily chose to work through or shorten the meal period. This framework applies at the summary judgment stage and reflects the Court’s view that employers are in the best position to maintain accurate and reliable meal-period records.
The Court was careful to distinguish meal periods from rest periods. While employers must authorize and permit compliant rest periods, they are not required to record rest breaks in timekeeping systems. As a result, the absence of rest-period records does not give rise to a comparable presumption of violation. This distinction continues to be critical in class certification and summary judgment proceedings, as courts analyze meal-period and rest-period claims under different evidentiary standards.
In the years since Donohue was decided, California courts have repeatedly relied on its burden-shifting framework when evaluating meal-period claims, including in the class certification context. Appellate decisions issued well after 2021 confirm that Donohue is not limited to rounding cases, but applies more broadly whenever employer records reflect apparent meal-period noncompliance without corresponding premium payments. The decision has therefore had lasting practical consequences for litigation strategy, recordkeeping practices, and internal compliance reviews.
Revisiting Donohue in 2025 serves as a reminder that meal period compliance is not assessed solely by policy language or generalized testimony. Courts place substantial weight on time records themselves, and those records may carry dispositive evidentiary consequences. Employers must ensure that meal periods are timely, unpaid, and uninterrupted, that time records accurately reflect when meal periods are taken, and that meal period premiums are paid and separately itemized on wage statements when compliant meal periods are not provided. Regular audits of timekeeping and payroll records remain an important tool for identifying and correcting issues before they become the subject of litigation.
Although Donohue is now a settled part of California wage-and-hour law, its principles continue to be tested and applied in new factual contexts. As recent appellate decisions demonstrate, courts remain attentive to the evidentiary role of time records and the allocation of proof when those records show apparent violations. For that reason, Donohue remains essential reading for employers, employees, and practitioners navigating California’s complex meal period requirements.