When Time Records Don’t Match Hours Worked: What Should Employers Do?
An employee’s timecard shows a 5:00 p.m. clock-out. The employee says they regularly kept working until 5:30—answering emails, wrapping up tasks, or responding to customers.
An employer’s first reaction may be: “But the timekeeping system says 5:00.”
That may not end the inquiry. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers are generally responsible for maintaining accurate records of hours worked by nonexempt employees. When an employee claims that the company’s records do not reflect all hours actually worked, the existence of a timecard alone may not resolve the dispute.
For employers, the key question is not simply whether employees clock in and out. It is whether the company’s records accurately reflect the time employees actually work.
What Happens When an Employer’s Time Records Are Inaccurate?
In a wage-and-hour dispute, timecards are important evidence—but they are not necessarily the only evidence.
An employee claiming unpaid work may point to other records, including:
Work communications: emails, Slack or Teams messages, and customer communications;
System data: computer logins, application activity, or access records;
Scheduling records: scheduled shifts and other work assignments; and
Other evidence: testimony from supervisors, coworkers, or other witnesses.
The issue becomes more significant when the employer’s own records are incomplete or inaccurate.
Under the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., where an employer has failed to maintain adequate records, an employee may establish unpaid work through evidence sufficient to support a reasonable inference about the amount and extent of that work. The burden may then shift to the employer to rebut that inference.
The takeaway for employers: the less reliable your own records are, the harder it may be to rely on those records when defending a wage claim.
Can Managers Edit Employee Timecards?
Yes—but the real question is why the timecard was changed and whether the corrected record is accurate.
Employees forget to clock in, miss punches, or enter incorrect times. A manager, HR professional, or payroll administrator correcting a legitimate error is not inherently problematic.
Risk arises when edits cause actual working time to disappear. Employers should pay particular attention to practices such as:
Moving clock-out times earlier even though the employee continued working;
Deleting recorded overtime before payroll is processed;
Automatically deducting meal periods when employees actually worked through them;
Requiring employees to clock out before completing closing or end-of-shift duties; or
Limiting reported hours to scheduled hours regardless of the time actually worked.
Employers that permit timecard edits should have a clear process for making and documenting those changes.
Ideally, the company should be able to answer three basic questions: Who made the change? Why was it made? What did the original record show?
Where the timekeeping system maintains an audit trail, that information should also be preserved.
What If the Overtime Was Not Approved?
This is where two separate issues often get mixed together: Whether the employee violated the company’s overtime policy and whether the employee must be paid for time actually worked are not the same question.
Employers may require employees to obtain advance approval before working overtime. But an overtime-approval policy does not necessarily eliminate the obligation to pay for compensable work the employer knew or should have known was being performed.
Common examples may include employees who:
answer work emails after clocking out;
complete closing duties after the end of a shift;
continue working during an unpaid meal period; or
perform required preparatory work before clocking in.
An employer may address an employee’s failure to follow a lawful overtime-approval policy through appropriate and consistently applied workplace policies. But simply deleting or refusing to record compensable time that has already been worked can create a separate wage-and-hour problem.
In short: unauthorized overtime may be a policy issue, but unpaid overtime can be a wage-and-hour issue.
When Does a Timekeeping Error Become a Bigger Problem?
An isolated missed punch is one thing. A timekeeping practice that affects an entire department is another.
Employers should look beyond the individual employee when the discrepancy may result from a companywide practice, system setting, or manager instruction.
For example:
Does the system automatically deduct 30 minutes for meal periods?
Does a manager routinely adjust the entire team’s clock-out times?
Are employees expected to finish closing duties after clocking out?
Are employees discouraged from reporting overtime that was not preapproved?
At that point, the question is no longer simply: “How much time was missed for this employee?”
The employer should also be asking: “Could the same practice have affected other employees?”
A seemingly small discrepancy can become much more significant when the same practice has been applied repeatedly across a group of employees.
What Should Employers Do When the Hours Don’t Match?
When an employee says the company’s records are wrong, do not automatically assume the employee is right—but do not automatically assume the system is right either. Investigate.
A practical review should generally include:
Compare the records. Review timecards against schedules, emails, system activity, and other relevant information.
Review timecard edits. Determine whether anyone changed the employee’s punches, when the changes were made, and why.
Understand the actual workflow. Determine whether employees perform work before clocking in, after clocking out, or during unpaid meal periods.
Review manager practices. Look for instructions or informal expectations that may discourage employees from reporting all time worked.
Determine the scope. Assess whether the issue is an isolated mistake or a practice affecting other employees.
If the review identifies a potential problem, employers should avoid simply changing historical records to make the numbers match. Preserve the original records and edit history first, then determine the actual hours worked, the employees potentially affected, the relevant time period, and whether any wages or overtime may be due.
The Bottom Line
A timekeeping system should do more than generate numbers for payroll. It should provide an accurate record of when nonexempt employees actually worked.
When an employee’s reported hours and the company’s records do not match, employers should not stop at “What does the timecard say?”
They should also ask: Is the record accurate? Who can change it? Why was it changed? And when employees clock out, are they actually done working?
Identifying those issues early can help employers address payroll discrepancies before they develop into broader wage-and-hour disputes.
If you have questions about timekeeping practices, overtime policies, timecard-editing procedures, or other wage-and-hour compliance issues—or need assistance investigating time discrepancies or employee complaints—please contact the ILS team at contact@consultils.com.
Disclaimer: The materials provided on this website are for general informational purposes only and do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here. Please consult with your own legal counsel regarding your specific situation and legal questions.
As Managing Partner at ILS, Richard Liu ranks among the leading U.S. attorneys in corporate, employment, and regulatory law. He is known for crafting legal strategies aligned with clients’ business objectives and advising Fortune 500 companies, startups, and executives on corporate transactions, financing, privacy, and employment matters across the technology, healthcare, and financial sectors.
Before founding ILS, Richard practiced at top defense firms, where he developed a reputation for anticipating risks and designing strategies that balance protection with growth. He has secured favorable outcomes in contract and intellectual property disputes, represented clients in state and federal courts, and is recognized for combining large-firm expertise with boutique-firm agility. Richard is also a frequent speaker at industry and legal conferences.
Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949
Comments