Compensation for Commute, Breaks, and Meal Times

In the case of Bethune v. TW Telecom Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL 856173 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), the Plaintiff alleged that he was not paid by the employer for “the hours he worked during his commute and meal and rest periods,” despite being required to work during this time.  Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that was not enough.

Bethune’s complaint alleged that he worked during his commute.  Ordinary commuting time is not time employees must be compensated for under the FLSA, even if the employee spends such time “thinking” about work.  Because Bethune was driving a vehicle, thinking is the only “work” Bethune could have done during this time.  As such, Bethune was held to not be able to recover unpaid wages under the FLSA for the time he spent commuting each day.

Bethune also sought unpaid wages for time spent working during his meal and rest periods. Whether the employer was required to compensate Bethune for “work” he performed during his meal and rest periods was dependent on the nature of the work Bethune performed.  In Reich v. Southern New England Telecommunications Corp., 121 F.3d 58, 64-66 (2d Cir.1998), for instance, the Second Circuit held that employees who were required to remain at their outdoor work site during their lunch breaks to maintain public safety and provide security must be compensated for that time because it was spent predominantly for the benefit of the employer. The Court explained that although the employees were otherwise free to eat their lunch, they lacked flexibility with regard to the lunch break and their presence at the work site was indispensable. Id. at 65.

Bethune may have been entitled to unpaid wages if he was required to complete work during his meal and rest periods that was “integral and indispensable” to his employment.  However, Bethune’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice.  Bethune may amend his complaint to include allegations that explain the work he performed during his meal and rest periods.  In the past, defendants might have filed Incidentally, a motion for more definite statements under FRCP 12(e).

In the past, a complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was sufficient if it alleged that employees were not paid for all overtime that they performed.  After the case of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, (2009), those days are over.  Motions for more definite statement seem to be gone after these cases.

Nebraska is located in the Eighth Circuit of the Federal Court system.  The Eighth Circuit has held that governments do not have to pay for meal periods of police officers. Houser v. N. Little Rock Police Dept., 6 F.3d 532 (8th Cir. 1993).  Corrections officers who were required to remain in the jail during meal periods, are not per say entitled to compensation; a jury should decide whether they are entitled to overtime.  Householder v. Pulaski Co. Sheriff Dept., 6 F.3d 532 (8th Cir. 1993).

If you have questions about whether you are entitled to be paid when you are on lunch or meal breaks because you are required to work, consider contacting Angela Madathil, and Madathil Law Office, LLC.  Contact us at angela@madathil-law.com or by telephone at 402.577.0686.  The firm offers free consultations.  For more information look at our website www.madathil-law.com.

If you live in Omaha, Lincoln, Lancaster County, Douglas County, Otoe, or Cass Counties and you need an employment lawyer , consider contacting Angela Y. Madathil and the Madathil Law Firm.   The firm serves clients in all of these areas.

Image from here.