Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 337
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 337.355 (2026)

Lunch period requirements

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Employers, except those subject to the Federal Railway Labor Act, shall grant their employees a reasonable period for lunch, and such time shall be as close to the middle of the employee's scheduled work shift as possible. In no case shall an employee be required to take a lunch period sooner than three (3) hours after his work shift commences, nor more than five (5) hours from the time his work shift commences. This section shall not be construed to negate any provision of a collective bargaining agreement or mutual agreement between the employee and employer. History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 333, sec. 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: England v. Advance Stores Co., 263 F.R.D. 423 (W.D. Ky. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
England v. Advance Stores Co., 263 F.R.D. 423 (W.D. Ky. 2009). · cites it 19× “See KRS 337.355 and 337.365 (Michie 2007). As for England’s claim of off-the-elock work, Advance Auto argues that this particular claim is de minimis given England’s concession that he never worked more than ten minutes at a time after clocking out.”
Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger, 170 S.W.3d 354 (Ky. 2005). “333, § 1 (KRS 337.355); 1974 Ky. Acts, ch. 386, § 106 (KRS 337.”
McCartt v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 843 (E.D. Ky. 2015). · cites it 2× “KRS § 337.355 by failing to compensate him for meal/rest breaks.”
Catlett v. Avis Budget Grp., No. 3:23-cv-00408 (W.D. Ky. July 18, 2024). · cites it 4× “§ 337.355 as well as unspecified “federal labor laws.”
Southard v. Newcomb Oil Co., No. 3:21-cv-00607, 2024 WL 4263639 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 23, 2024). · cites it 2× “285; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods under Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 337.355, 337.365, and 446.”
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.