Source: https://blog.eplaceinc.com/epl/archives/tag/meal-period
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:25:41+00:00

Document:
Meal Period | ePlace Solutions, Inc.
In a recent decision (Brady v. Autozone Stores, Inc.), the Washington Supreme Court has clarified the employer’s obligations with respect to providing their employees with meal periods and establishing that a meal period was waived.
Prior to this decision, an employer could establish that it met its meal period obligations simply by showing it provided employees with a meaningful opportunity for a meal period. Now, due to the Court’s decision in Brady, Washington employers must ensure that their employees take their meal periods – UNLESS the employer can prove that the meal period was waived via a valid meal period waiver.
The Brady case is the typical wage and hour lawsuit where a group of employees filed a class action lawsuit claiming (among other things) that they and other employees were prevented from taking their meal periods. The case was filed in federal court.
The federal court denied class certification of the meal period claim – concluding that “employers have met their obligation under the law if they ensure that employees have the opportunity for a meaningful meal break, free from coercion or any other impediment” and rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that employers are strictly liable whenever an employee misses a meal break.
If an employer is not strictly liable under WAC 296-126-092, does the employee carry the burden to prove that his employer did not permit the employee an opportunity to take a meaningful break as required by WAC 296-126-092?
With respect to the first question, the Court found that employers are not strictly liable for an employee missing the meal period. Since an employee is permitted to waive the meal period at his/her choosing, the Court found that the employer cannot be held strictly liable for the missed meal period.
This case sends an important message to employers regarding Washington meal periods. Employers can no longer assert that employees were provided with a meaningful opportunity to take a break and chose simply not to do so. Instead, employers must document an employee’s waiver of his/her meal period in writing (via a written meal period waiver). Absence of such a waiver could result in penalties being assessed against the employer.
In a recent case (DeVito v. Longwood Security Services, Inc.), the Massachusetts Superior Court set forth a new standard for determining whether an employee’s meal period should be paid or unpaid.
In this case the plaintiffs were a group of private security officers who worked at housing developments, medical facilities, and colleges. These employees were provided the opportunity to take their meal periods, but were required to remain at their assigned worksite, remain in uniform, and respond to any radio calls they might receive during the meal period.
The employees filed a lawsuit claiming that their meal periods should be paid because the employees were not completely relieved of all work-related duties during their meal periods.
The employer, on the other hand, argued that the meal periods should not be paid because the time the employees’ spent on their meal periods was predominantly for the benefit of the employees (which is the test Court have generally applied for determining whether a break should be paid under the FLSA).
The Massachusetts Superior Court agreed with the employees and held that the standard for whether a meal period should be paid or unpaid in Massachusetts was whether the employees were completely relieved of all work-related duties – i.e. the “relieved-of-all-duties” test. Under this test, Massachusetts employers must pay employees for meal breaks unless employees are completely relieved of all work-related duties during the meal period. In other words, meal periods where employees are required to remain on premises and/or on-call must be paid meal periods.
The Court’s ruling likely impacts many Massachusetts employers. It is recommended that all Massachusetts employers review their meal period policies and practices and ensure that employees’ meal period are unpaid only if the employees are free of all work-related duties during their meal periods. In addition, managers and supervisors should be informed of this change in the law and further directed to carefully consider any restrictions that they might place on employees during the meal period (like requiring the employees to remain onsite or to remain on-call) as such practices may render the meal period compensable.
Finally — Guidance Regarding On Duty Meal Periods!
In a recent decision (Driscoll v. Granite Rock Company), the California Court of Appeal (finally) provides guidance to California employers about on duty meal periods.
There is a written agreement between the employer and employee that an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to.
For several years, the only guidance available regarding the nature of work exception was provided by the DLSE, who opined that the nature of work exception is a limited exception and is narrowly construed. In fact, the DLSE has said that it only applies in extreme circumstances (like a sole worker in a coffee kiosk, a sole worker in an all-night convenience store, and a security guard stationed alone at a remote site) where it is simply impossible for the employee to take a meal period because there is no one available to relieve the employee (i.e. because the employee is working alone). However, with this new ruling, employers have more guidance on when an on duty meal period may be permissible.
In Driscoll, the plaintiffs were concrete mixer drivers who were provided the option of signing an on-duty meal period agreement, which they all signed. Prior to signing the agreement, the plaintiffs were also told that if they did not sign an On-Duty Meal Period Agreement and were asked to work through a meal, they would receive one hour of special pay. Finally, the plaintiffs were also notified of their right to a 30-minute, off-duty meal period.
The plaintiffs ultimately filed a class action lawsuit against their employer for failure to provide the required meal periods. The company’s asserted defense was the on duty meal period agreement.
While this case does show support for on duty meal period agreements, employers are advised to proceed with caution before trying to implement on duty meal periods in their own workplace. The Court made it very clear that the permissibility of a particular on duty meal period arrangement is very fact-specific and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Before implementing an on duty meal period, it is recommended that employers carefully analyze the positions for which an on duty meal period is sought and seek the guidance of an attorney before taking any action.
On October 5, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 327 into law. This new law permits California healthcare workers to waive their second meal period – even when these workers work shifts exceed twelve (12) hours.
California Labor Code section 512 requires employers to provide two meal periods to employees who work more than ten hours per workday. Under section 512, employees are able to voluntarily waive the second meal period, but only when their shift is less than twelve hours.
In 2000, the Industrial Welfare Commission created a special exception in the Wage Orders for healthcare workers (Wage Order #4 and Wage Order #5) wherein healthcare workers were permitted to waive their second meal period when they worked more than eight (8) hours in a day. This special waiver was found to be unlawful by the California Court of Appeal in Gerard v. Orange Coast Medical Center.
The passage of SB 327 overturns Gerard v. Orange Coast Medical Center and renders its ruling inapplicable. This means that the second meal period waiver provisions in Wage Orders 4 and 5 remain valid and enforceable. This law was enacted as urgency legislation; therefore its provisions are effective immediately.
Where an employer designates a location for meal breaks, employees must be compensated for any time spent traveling to that location. This factual situation came before the court in Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., where security guards who were required to travel off-site for meal breaks in order to maintain the image of “professionalism,” sued for unpaid wages associated with their travel time.
The court held that because the round trip travel time was upwards of twelve minutes, it substantially cut into the guard’s 30 minute meal break and therefore required compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Employers should note that mandated travel may not only require employees be paid for their travel time, but failure to pay them could result in additional liability for unpaid overtime as a result of back pay. Thus, it is always best to provide employees with a meal period free of any work-related obligations.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.