engaged in by an employee before the commencement of his ‘principal’ activity ... and ‘postliminary activity1 means an activity engaged in by an employee after the completion of his ‘principal’ activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 790.7; see also, § 785.5. A rounding claim is something quite different; it arises, if at all, from rounding the clocked times at which employees start and stop their “principal” activities. See Lacy v. Reddy Elec. Co., No. 11-CV-52, 2013 WL 3580309, at *13-14, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97718, at *37 (S.D.Ohio, July 11, 2013) (to recover damages under rounding theory, employees must show they clocked in and engaged in principal activities before their scheduled start time, but were not compensated); see also, Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., 488 F.3d 586, 590 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In short, a rounding claim cannot reasonably
recognizing the substantial body of case law discussing distinction between preliminary and postliminary activities on the one hand and principle activities of employment on the other holding that congress may regulate purely local intrastate activities if they are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce recognizing the liens on the one hand and representing that the tax claim had been released on the other recognizing a traditional distinction between the public and governmental acts of sovereign states on the one hand and their private and commercial acts on the other holding that presale activities were preliminary and did not transfer title