(a) Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime. Bona fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 F. Supp. 661 (D. Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 F. 2d 981 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 888 (1952); Thompson v. Stock & Sons, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 213 (E.D. Mich 1950), aff'd 194 F. 2d 493 (C.A. 6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corp., 183 F. 2d 515 (C. A. 9, 1950), 187 F. 2d 447 (C.A. 9, 1951); Walling v. Dunbar Transfer & Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor Cases para. 61.565 (W.D. Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D. Okla. 1942); aff'd 136 F. 2d 359 (C.A. 10, 1943); cert. denied 320 U.S. 772 (1943); Mitchell v. Tampa Cigar Co., 36 Labor Cases para. 65, 198, 14 W.H. Cases 38 (S.D. Fla. 1959); Douglass v. Hurwitz Co., 145 F. Supp. 29, 13 W.H. Cases (E.D. Pa. 1956))
(b) Where no permission to leave premises. It is not necessary that an employee be permitted to leave the premises if he is otherwise completely freed from duties during the meal period.
Notes of Decisions
Elliott Gelber v. AKAL Security, Inc. (2021)
ca11 · cites it 12×
“1 Specifically, 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 sets forth the Department’s views about whether meal breaks are “bona fide” and, thus, whether they constitute compensable work.”
Rochell Mitchell v. JCG Industries (2014)
ca7 · cites it 11×
“29 C.F.R. § 785.19 . The regulation gives, as an example of a meal break that is not bona fide, when “a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is work‐ ing while eating.”
Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc. (2011)
ca4 · cites it 6×
“This time is noncompensable, however, because it is part of a bona fide meal period, see 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 ("Bona fide meal periods are *370 not worktime.”
Wahl v. City of Wichita, Kan. (1989)
ksd · cites it 11×
“The administrative regulations adopted to help define the scope of the FLSA define the compensability of employee meal periods in 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 . (a) Bona fide meal periods.”
Michael Bates v. The Department of Corrections of the State of Kansas (1996)
ca10 · cites it 8×
“However, it was the position of the Department of Corrections that on each eight and a half hour day, the plaintiffs received a half hour bona fide meal period, which, under 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 , was not work time. All of which would mean that the individual plaintiffs only had…”
Jennifer Jenkins v. S. David Anton, PA (2019)
ca11 · cites it 3×
“" Employee argues that the District Court erred by excluding the lunches from the overtime calculation because lunches during work count toward overtime unless the employee is "completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals.”
Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp. (2017)
nysd · cites it 2×
“3d at 472 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 (a)). Conversely, an “employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating.”
Raper v. State (2004)
iowa · cites it 4×
“" 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 (a). In cases such as this, the courts have developed a rule that if the employer spent his or her time "predominantly for the benefit of the employer," it is compensable.”
Longcrier v. HL-A CO., INC. (2009)
alsd · cites it 2×
“*1221 The three specific FLSA violations enumerated in the Amended Complaint are as follows: (a) a claim that HL-A willfully violated the FLSA by causing or allowing Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to work “off the clock” without pay during scheduled 30-minute lunch…”
Castaneda v. JBS USA, LLC (2016)
ca10 · cites it 2×
“See 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 (a). The parties have disputed whether certain activities at the beginning and end of the 30-minute meal breaks at- the JBS plant are compen-sable work and even whether the break meets the requirement for a bona fide meal break.”
Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (2011)
ksd · cites it 3×
“29 C.F.R. § 785.19 (a). The Tenth Circuit, consistent with the majority of Circuits, has held that an employee is “completely relieved from duty” during a meal period, for purposes of the regulation, when the “employee’s time is not spent predominantly for the benefit of the…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a) — 7 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(b) — 2 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.