Third Circuit Adopts Test for Evaluating Meal Periods Under FLSA

Practical Law Legal Update w-001-0048 (Approx. 5 pages)

Third Circuit Adopts Test for Evaluating Meal Periods Under FLSA

by Practical Law Labor & Employment

Published on 01 Dec 2015 • USA (National/Federal)

In Babcock v. Butler County, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that courts must apply the predominant benefit test to determine whether meal periods are compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The test adopted by the Third Circuit assesses whether the employer or the employee gains the predominant benefit from the mealtime break.

On November 24, 2015, in Babcock v. Butler County, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that courts should apply the predominant benefit test to determine whether meal periods are compensable under the FLSA. The test adopted by the Third Circuit assesses whether the employer or the employee gains the predominant benefit from the mealtime break by examining the totality of the circumstances, including whether or not employees are primarily engaged in work-related duties during their meal break. The Third Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing an overtime lawsuit brought by corrections officers seeking compensation for an unpaid portion of their one-hour meal break. (Babcock v. Butler Cty., No. 14-1467, (3d Cir. Nov. 24, 2015).)

Background

Sandra Babcock worked as a corrections officer at a prison in Butler County, Pennsylvania. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provided that corrections officers take a one-hour meal period, of which 45 minutes were paid and 15 minutes were unpaid. The CBA provided that during the meal period, corrections officers must:

Not leave the prison without permission from the warden or deputy warden.
Remain in uniform.
Be in close proximity to emergency response equipment.
Remain on call to respond to emergencies.
Babcock initiated a class action overtime lawsuit under the FLSA in US district court alleging that:
The full one-hour meal break period was compensable.
She and similarly situated corrections officers were due compensation for the unpaid 15-minute portion of each meal break.

Butler County moved to dismiss Babcock's complaint. The district court noted that:

To determine whether meal periods are compensable under the FLSA, courts typically apply either:
- the predominant benefit test; or
- the relieved from all duties test.
The Third Circuit has not yet adopted either test.

The district court granted Butler County's motion to dismiss, finding that the officers gained the predominant benefit of the meal period. Babcock appealed to the Third Circuit, claiming that her complaint stated a claim for relief under either test.

Outcome

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Babcock’s FLSA class action complaint, holding that:

The Third Circuit will apply the predominant benefit test to determine whether a meal period is a bona fide, non-compensable meal period or a compensable rest period.
The predominant benefit test is a fact-intensive inquiry that involves looking at the totality of the circumstances, including whether the employee is:
- primarily engaged in work-related duties during the meal period; or
- relieved from work during the meal period.
- The Third Circuit noted that:
The FLSA does not specify the circumstances under which meal periods are compensable. The applicable DOL regulation states that a bona fide, non-compensable meal period provides that an employee must:
- be completely relieved from duty; and
- not be required to perform any duties while eating.

(29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a).)

Courts have not interpreted the FLSA regulation literally, but instead have applied Supreme Court precedent to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the employer or the employee benefits from the meal period (Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 133 (1944)).
The majority of circuits have adopted the predominant benefit test. No court has actually adopted the relieved from all duties test.
The predominant benefit test is fact-intensive and courts have looked to various factors in applying the test, including:
- whether employees are free to leave the premises;
- the number of times employees taking their lunch break can be subject to interruptions; and
- whether employees are in fact relieved from work so that they may eat their regularly scheduled meal.
- (See Kohlheim v. Glynn County, 915 F.2d 1473, 1477 (11th Cir. 1990).)

The Third Circuit focused mainly on whether the officers were in fact relieved from work during the meal period. The Third Circuit found that the 15 minute unpaid portion of the meal period was not compensable and that the officers received the predominant benefit from the meal period because:

The officers were not primarily engaged in work duties during their meal period.
The officers could:
- request permission to leave the prison during their meal period; and
- eat lunch away from their desks.
Restrictions on the officers' use of their meal period did not predominantly benefit their employer.
The CBA protected the officers' right to overtime pay by providing for officers to be:
- compensated for part of their meal break; and
- paid overtime if their meal period was interrupted by work.

(See Leahy v. City of Chicago, 96 F.3d 228 (7th Cir. 1996).)

Practical Implications

With its decision in Babcock the Third Circuit joins a number of circuits that have adopted the predominant benefit test to determine whether a meal period is compensable. Employers in the Third Circuit that seek to implement non-compensable meal periods should formulate policies clearly stating that employees:

Are relieved of all work during meal periods.
Should take their meal periods away from their desks or workstations.
Are not restricted from taking their lunch breaks off premises.

Third Circuit Adopts Test for Evaluating Meal Periods Under FLSA | Practical Law