Here’s a quirk in wage-and-hour law for Minnesota employers. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had adopted a different standard than the one recommended by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for determining whether meal times must be paid time.
The DOL says meal times are paid time unless employees are completely relieved of their duties during breaks. The 8th Circuit says the correct rule is that employers can require employees to be ready to work during meal times without affecting its unpaid status.
This is known as the “predominantly for the benefit of the employer” standard.
Recent case: Dimas and other chicken processing plant employees sued Tyson Foods, alleging they had been denied pay for hours worked. They demanded pay for their meal periods because Tyson required them to take off their protective clothing before lunch and put it back on before returning to work. The employees wanted that time to be excluded from unpaid lunch time and included in paid time.
They argued that under the DOL interpretation of unpaid meal times, requiring them to remove and put gear back on meant that they were not completely relieved of work duties for the entire meal period.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals said the workers had it wrong. The correct rule is that the activity performed during meal times had to be predominantly for the benefit of the employer to be paid time. Taking gear off and putting it back on didn’t meet that standard. Presumably, employees wouldn’t want to eat in protective gear splattered with chicken blood. (Lopez, et al., v. Tyson Foods, No. 11-2344, 8th Cir., 2012)
Final note: Consult your attorney before requiring employees to be on call or not completely relieved during meal breaks.
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- State-by-state 2012 short-term child-care leave laws
- Pay tops job security as #1 reason for job satisfaction
- Given California's strict break rules, can employees work through lunch?
- 'This isn't about the money,' says the employee--truth or lie?