29 C.F.R. § 553.223

Meal time

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If a public agency elects to pay overtime compensation to employees in fire protection activities and law enforcement personnel in accordance with section 7(a)(1) of the Act, the public agency may exclude meal time from hours worked if all the tests in § 785.19 of this title are met.

(b) If a public agency elects to use the section 7(k) exemption, the public agency may, in the case of law enforcement personnel, exclude meal time from hours worked on tours of duty of 24 hours or less, provided that the employee is completely relieved from duty during the meal period, and all the other tests in § 785.19 of this title are met. On the other hand, where law enforcement personnel are required to remain on call in barracks or similar quarters, or are engaged in extended surveillance activities (e.g., “stakeouts”), they are not considered to be completely relieved from duty, and any such meal periods would be compensable.

(c) With respect to employees in fire protection activities employed under section 7(k), who are confined to a duty station, the legislative history of the Act indicates Congressional intent to mandate a departure from the usual FLSA “hours of work” rules and adoption of an overtime standard keyed to the unique concept of “tour of duty” under which employees in fire protection activities are employed. Where the public agency elects to use the section 7(k) exemption for employees in fire protection activities, meal time cannot be excluded from the compensable hours of work where (1) the employee in fire protection activities is on a tour of duty of less than 24 hours, and (2) where the employee in fire protection activities is on a tour of duty of exactly 24 hours, which is a departure from the general rules in § 785.22 of this title.

(d) In the case of police officers or employees in fire protection activities who are on a tour of duty of more than 24 hours, meal time may be excluded from compensable hours of work provided that the tests in §§ 785.19 and 785.22 of this title are met.

[52 FR 2032, Jan. 16, 1987, as amended at 76 FR 18857, Apr. 5, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2022 · leading case: Julie Alexander, Carmel G. Abbate, Bozeman Anderson v. City of Chicago, a Mun. Corp., 994 F.2d 333 (7th Cir. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Julie Alexander, Carmel G. Abbate, Bozeman Anderson v. City of Chicago, a Mun. Corp., 994 F.2d 333 (7th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 553.223 (b). The district court, in ascertaining whether the officers’ mealtimes here are compensable work time under the FLSA, looked only to the more specific regulation, section 553.”

Michael Bates v. The Dep't of Corr. of the State of Kansas, 81 F.3d 1008 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “§ 207 (k) and 29 C.F.R. § 553.223 , whereas the instant case involves 29 U.”

Monahan v. Cnty. of Chesterfield, 95 F.3d 1263 (4th Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “With respect to the uncompensated meal time, 5 the jury found that the City had violated the express terms of 29 C.F.R. § 553.223 which exempts payment for meal time only if “the employee is completely relieved from duty during meal periods.”

Robert W. Kohlheim, Cross-Appellees v. Glynn Cnty., Georgia, a Political Subdivision of the State of Georgia, Cross-Appellant, 915 F.2d 1473 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 553.223 (c) (1989). 6 .Under Southern District of Georgia rules, a party moving for summary judgment must file a concise statement of facts as to which it contends there is no genuine issue for trial.”

Sandra Barefield, Eddie Benoit, Dave W. Bennett v. Vill. of Winnetka, an Illinois Mun. Corp., 81 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 553.223 (b) (noting that a public agency invoking a 7(k) partial overtime exception “may .”

Randolph Johnson, Jr. v. City of Columbia, South Carolina, Randolph Johnson, Jr. v. The City of Columbia, 949 F.2d 127 (4th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 553.223 (c). 29 C.F.R. § 785.”

McGrath v. City of Philadelphia, 864 F. Supp. 466 (E.D. Pa. 1994). · cites it 2× “19 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 553.223 (b). More specifically, § 785.”

Daniel Leahy, James Martinez, Michael D. Moore v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 96 F.3d 228 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 553.223 (b), which applies to agencies that elect to use the § 7(k) exception, permits the exclusion of meal periods from the calculation of hours worked on tours of duty of 24 hours or less provided that the employee is completely relieved from duty during the meal…”

Avery v. City of Talladega, 24 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.223 (b). and 785.19(a) (1993).”

Isaac Lee, Cross-Appellees v. Coahoma Cnty., Mississippi, Cross-Appellants, 937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1991). “Title 29 C.F.R. § 553.223 so provides. The meal period must be scheduled, occur at a regular time, and normally be thirty minutes or more.”

Brian F. Monahan v. Cnty. Of Chesterfield, Virginia, 95 F.3d 1263 (4th Cir. 1996). “This 1952 case preceded the meal time regulation, 29 C.F.R. 553.223, enacted to interpret the 1985 amendments to the FLSA.”

Elliott Gelber v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 14 F.4th 1279 (11th Cir. 2021). “It provides that some public agencies may, “in the case of law enforcement personnel, exclude meal time from hours worked on tours of duty of 24 hours or less, provided that the employee is completely relieved from duty during the meal period, and all the other tests in § 785.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.