Employee timekeeping system at Saint Luke’s Health System unfair, federal appeals court rules

A federal appeals court has reversed a decision that favored Saint Luke’s Health System’s employee timekeeping system.

A ruling issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacates the previous ruling and sends the case back to district court for further proceedings.

“This is a critical victory in this case and puts us one step closer to recovering the unpaid wages of thousands of hard-working healthcare workers,” attorney Ryan McClelland said in a statement to The Star. “We now look forward to litigating these class claims to a decision on the merits.”

A spokeswoman for Saint Luke’s did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In April 2017, Torri Houston sued the health system, claiming its timekeeping system violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Houston had been employed as a surgical technologist from March 2014 to January 2017 at the campus at 5830 N.W. Barry Road. The health system has 10 hospitals and campuses across the metro.

According to Houston’s complaint, employees could clock in or out up to six minutes before or after their shift. The system would round the time to their scheduled start or end time.

During Houston’s employment, the lawsuit said she was not paid for about 400 minutes of work.

“Their policies, practices, and/or procedures are designed to intentionally avoid paying their employees for all such hours worked,” the lawsuit said.

An expert said the policy favored Saint Luke’s “to the tune of 74,000 employee-hours from April 2012 to September 2018.”

The health system argued the rounding policy was neutral and lawful.

In March 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri agreed, saying the time lost per shift was not that much.

Houston appealed.

“She maintains that she has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute that the policy results in systematic undercompensation over time,” the court of appeals said in its ruling. “We agree.”