Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events
When employees are required to remain on premises or otherwise be available to the employer during an unpaid meal break, the issue arises whether the meal time is compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Two tests have been developed by the courts of appeal in other jurisdictions, one focusing on whether the employee was relieved from all duties during the meal break, and the other more common view focusing on whether the employer or the employee received the “predominant benefit” of the meal break. In Babcock v. Butler County, No. 14-1467 (3d Cir. 2015) the Third Circuit finally weighed in, adopting the “predominant benefit” test to determine whether the time is compensable.
The Facts: Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, Butler County Prison correction officers received a one hour meal period each shift, of which 45 minutes were paid and 15 minutes were unpaid. During the meal period corrections officers were not permitted to leave the prison without permission, were required to stay in uniform and in close proximity to emergency response equipment, and remain on call to respond to emergencies. The corrections officers claimed they were entitled to pay for the full hour (e.g., the unpaid 15 minutes) under the FLSA because these restrictions prevented them from leaving the facility, smoking or engaging in other personal errands during the meal period. The County claimed that the lunch hours was a non-compensable “bona fide meal period” under the FLSA because the corrections officers received the “predominant benefit” of the break period.
The Holding: The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court’s ruling that under the facts presented, the corrections officers were the predominant beneficiaries of the meal break, and thus the time was not compensable time under the FLSA. The court rejected the minority “relieved from all duties” test that would result in the time being compensable if the employee was not free to leave the premises, was on call or was otherwise restricted in any way from engaging in personal activities during the break. Under the more flexible “predominant benefit” test adopted by the court, such restrictions would not necessarily negate the “bona fide meal period” status if on balance the restrictions did not predominantly benefit the employer. In ruling against the corrections officers, the court observed that the officers could request permission to leave the prison to eat their lunch and could eat away from their desks. The court also relied upon the fact that the officers were protected by a CBA that provided them with a partially-compensated meal period and assured them payment for overtime payments. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court reasoned that despite the restrictions, the meal break was predominantly for the benefit of the corrections officers.
The Bottom Line: Determining whether restrictions imposed upon employees during a meal period will result in the time being compensable under the FLSA remains a fact-sensitive inquiry that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, in light of the Third Circuit’s ruling, the imposition of some restrictions on employee activities during break periods will not necessarily require compensation under the FLSA. Rather, the courts will apply the “predominant benefit” test to the facts to determine whether, notwithstanding the restrictions, the meal period is one that is that on balance is for the primary benefit of the employee, not the employer.
Employers who impose any restrictions on employee meal breaks should consult with employment counsel to determine whether these restrictions undermine a claim that the time is a bona fide meal break that need not be compensated.