Among the most common reasons cited by employees who file cases claiming non-payment based on failure to pay overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the belief that meal periods are compensable if they meet certain conditions. More specifically, many employees feel that they should be paid for meal periods if they are not allowed to leave the workplace, or if they are required to do something for the employer while on their break.

Whether that assessment is accurate, however, depends on several things. Under most circumstances, employers are not required to pay for meal periods. While there is no single specific set of rules that apply in every situation, recently the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Ruffin v. Motorcity Casino , cited three major factors that courts will usually take into account to determine whether or not an employee should have been paid for a meal period.

In that case, the court ruled that the fact that casino security guards were required to stay inside the casino and monitor their radios during their meal break was not sufficient to make that time compensable, since they were not being required to conduct a meaningful level of work as they ate. That was based on the first factor they noted, which had to do with whether or not the employee is required to perform a substantial enough portion of his usual work duties during his or her meal period to warrant payment.

Another factor the court will usually consider is whether or not the employer routinely interrupts the employee’s meal period. For example, in Motorcity Casino, most of the employees who brought the action noted that, even though they were required to monitor the radio during their meal break, they were almost never interrupted by an emergency call. One testified to having never been interrupted by a call, another said it had only happened once in a decade, while another claimed they had been interrupted ten times in eight years. In its ruling, the court noted that it would be difficult for any of them to argue that merely being asked to monitor the radio was more than a passive activity for the most part, given the results.

The third factor the court will usually examine is whether or not an employee is allowed to leave the workplace for his or her meal period. However, it’s not as cut-and-dried as that. A meal period is not necessarily compensable simply because an employee has to stay on the premises. If the employee is eating while working at his or her desk, it may be compensable. However, if the employee spends most meal breaks eating, socializing with co-workers, posting on Facebook or taking care of personal business, the employer will be given the benefit of the doubt and will not have to pay for that.

Keep in mind, all of these factors will be taken together; no single factor will determine whether or not an employee is entitled to be paid for a meal period. Essentially, the court will consider the level of freedom the employee in question has been given during the meal period, and the more freedom he or she has, the less likely it is that the meal period is compensable.

Besides the FLSA, employers should also consider state and local laws when dealing with this issue, since a number have their own rules, and many of them are even more stringent than the FLSA. It’s necessary to comply with all of the rules regarding meal periods.

The bottom line is, while employers may ask their employees to perform minor tasks while on a lunch break without having to pay, when the tasks become somewhat burdensome, the meal break may become compensable.

References:

The National Law Review: When Are Meal Periods Compensable?

U.S. Department of Labor – Meal Periods & Rest Breaks

The post Are Meal Breaks Compensable Under the FLSA? appeared first on Saenz & Anderson | Attorneys at Law Serving Aventura, FL and Miami-Dade County.