Opinion ID: 694147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compensability of Meal Time

Text: 28 The district court ruled plaintiffs should be compensated during their half-hour meal break. Specifically, the magistrate judge held the captains and lieutenants are under such restrictions as to their movement and availability that the one-half hour lunch period should be considered as compensable time. Appellant's App. Vol. I doc. 14 at 3. Thus, Plaintiffs worked one-half hour during the pre-shift briefing period, 7 one-half hour during the lunch period, and seven and one-half hours during their regular shift, for a total of eight and one-half compensable hours per day. The magistrate judge used this eight and one-half hour figure to calculate damages. 29 [A] police officer must primarily be engaged in work-related duties during meal periods to warrant compensation therefor. Lamon, 972 F.2d at 1157; see also 29 C.F.R. 785.19; 553.223(b). 8 Here, the evidence shows plaintiffs are on call during their lunch and may not leave the facility except under very limited circumstances. Plaintiffs testified their meal period is disrupted on a regular basis because they are needed elsewhere in the prison. These are factual findings which are not clearly erroneous. Consequently, we affirm the district court's decision on this issue.