Opinion ID: 2982687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Missed-lunch slip policy

Text: Having found that the plaintiffs’ meal breaks were not compensable under the FLSA, we next consider whether the plaintiffs may recover for missed lunch breaks for which they did not submit a missed-lunch slip. The district court concluded that our precedent in White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, 699 F.3d 869, 876 (6th Cir. 2012), dictates that the plaintiffs are precluded from recovery because there we held that “if an employer establishes a reasonable process for an employee to report uncompensated work time the employer is not liable for non-payment if the employee fails to follow the established process.” In White, we held that an employer was not liable for payment of missed lunches to an employee who had an unpaid meal break automatically deducted from her paycheck and was required to fill out an exception log if she missed her lunch break. Id. at 872. The employee, a nurse, stated that on at least one occasion she used the exception log to report missing a meal break and was compensated. Id. But she also testified that she stopped using the exception log or reporting the missed lunches. Id. Although she occasionally told her supervisors that she was not getting her meal breaks, she never told them that she was not being compensated for missing the breaks. Id. at 876. Reasoning that the employer could not have had constructive knowledge that she was not being compensated for the missed lunches because she had not told her supervisors that she had not received compensation, we affirmed summary judgment for the employer. Id. We also found that the employer had no actual knowledge that the employee was not paid for her missed lunches and that there was no evidence that the employer in any way discouraged employees from reporting time worked during meal breaks. Id. at 872, 877. Here, the plaintiffs have not produced evidence that Yellow had either constructive or actual knowledge that they were not receiving compensation for missed meal breaks. White thus -8- Case No. 14-5497 Jones-Turner, et al. v. Yellow Enterprise Systems, LLC, et al dictates that their claim fails. Although the plaintiffs argue that their managers had actual knowledge that the plaintiffs were regularly missing meal breaks and were not submitting missed-lunch slips, the plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral argument that there was no evidence in the record that the managers were regularly reviewing the crew logs at any time other than when a missed-lunch slip was submitted. Therefore, there is no evidence that Yellow had any actual knowledge that its employees were not receiving their meal breaks and not being compensated for that time. Moreover, given that the plaintiffs have testified that on several occasions they did use the missed-lunch slip procedure and were reimbursed for their missed lunches, we cannot say that it was unreasonable for Yellow not to cross-check the crew logs with the missed-lunch slips to ensure that the plaintiffs were paid for all missed lunches. As in White, the plaintiffs’ claims fail because the employer had established a reasonable process to report missed meal periods, and there is no evidence that the employer had actual knowledge that employees were not being compensated for time worked. D. Collective action decertification and denial of Rule 23 class certification Similarly situated employees may recover compensation from an employer through an FLSA collective action. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). However, without a viable claim, lead plaintiffs cannot represent others whom they allege to be similarly situated. White, 699 F.3d at 878. Because the district court properly granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ FLSA claim for missed meal breaks, the plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing that they are similarly situated to the opt-in plaintiffs. Based on the record before us, we also find that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Yellow on the plaintiffs’ state-law claims that they were not guaranteed meal and rest breaks. Accordingly, the plaintiffs may not be certified as a class under Rule 23 -9- Case No. 14-5497 Jones-Turner, et al. v. Yellow Enterprise Systems, LLC, et al for their state-law claims because the district court properly granted summary judgment on those claims. We therefore affirm the district court’s decertification of the collective action and denial of Rule 23 class certification.