We checked the exposure calculator’s rounding intervals, 7-minute-rule description, scale-up math, California / Oregon case posture, and related-resource claims against primary sources and the shipped time-clock-rounding-rules research. All checked claims are marked Verified.
This is a quantification tool, not a compliance engine. It compares exact vs rounded paid minutes for a sample week and scales dollars. Policy legality, meal-period rounding, liquidated damages, and class aggregation are intentionally out of scope.
Verification result: the checked tool claims are verified for publication.
2 claims
29 CFR §785.48(b) names 5-, 6- (one-tenth hour), and 15-minute rounding
FAQ; methodology; widget callout
10-minute option is labeled as a payroll convention, not regulation-named.
Federal rounding must not underpay employees over time
FAQ; methodology
Tool correctly frames a one-week gap as audit signal, not automatic illegality.
1 claim
“7-minute rule” is the colloquial quarter-hour half-interval convention
FAQ; methodology
Implementation uses Math.round to nearest 15; midpoint 7.5 rounds away from zero for positive values. Not presented as a separate statute.
1 claim
Default underpay example math (8:53–5:00, 15-min, −7 min/day, −35 min/week, $37,916.67 annual at $25 × 50 × 52)
Methodology worked example; data.test.ts
Unit tests lock gross 487 → 480, net 457 → 450, week −35, annual (35/60)×25×50×52.
1 claim
Rounding is applied to the gross shift before break deduction
Methodology; research.md
Matches time-card-calculator order; methodology discloses per-edge punch systems may differ.
3 claims
See’s Candy allowed facially neutral rounding that does not undercompensate over time (CA Court of Appeal 2012)
FAQ; methodology
Cited as historical neutrality framework, not as current “rounding is always fine in CA.”
Donohue bars California meal-period rounding (final CA Supreme Court)
FAQ; methodology
Tool does not model meal periods; correctly scopes out.
Woodworth followed Camp’s direction (2023 Court of Appeal)
FAQ; methodology
Described as same direction; no invented holding details.
1 claim
Camp held exact-time pay when exact time is captured; CA Supreme Court review pending (persuasive, not final SC law)
FAQ; methodology
Copy does not invent a final Supreme Court holding.
1 claim
Eisele is a federal district-court decision warning Oregon employers; not Oregon Supreme Court law
FAQ; methodology
Authority level stated accurately in FAQ and methodology.
1 claim
Related surfaces — research/article time-clock-rounding-rules, quick-read why-time-clock-rounding-is-risky-now, tool time-card-calculator
index.ts related
Slugs match shipped cluster resources.
11 unique sources cited across the report — click to audit any claim directly against its evidence.
Every claim above links to the source we used. Open any source to compare the wording here with the underlying rule, guidance, court opinion, or product behavior.
If a source has changed or a claim looks wrong, tell us. We would rather correct the page than leave a stale answer online. See how we fact-check.
Clockspot helps small businesses track employee time and keep payroll-ready records. Used in all 50 states since 2007, we focus on getting time and pay right — including the wage-and-hour rules that shape both.
We build Clockspot for the same reason we publish these reports: time records should be understandable, reviewable, and tied to the rules that affect payroll. See how Clockspot works.