Travel Time That Eats into Meal Periods Cannot Be a "Mere Inconvenience" as a Matter of Law: Fifth Circuit | Practical Law

Travel Time That Eats into Meal Periods Cannot Be a "Mere Inconvenience" as a Matter of Law: Fifth Circuit | Practical Law

In Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered, under its "predominant benefit test," whether requiring travel to a designated break area shortens an otherwise bona fide meal period to a "rest break" compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court determined that the duration of the transition determined the classification and compensability of the break time.

Travel Time That Eats into Meal Periods Cannot Be a "Mere Inconvenience" as a Matter of Law: Fifth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 22 Sep 2015 • USA (National/Federal)
In Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered, under its "predominant benefit test," whether requiring travel to a designated break area shortens an otherwise bona fide meal period to a "rest break" compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court determined that the duration of the transition determined the classification and compensability of the break time.
On September 15, 2015, in Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that:
  • If required travel to a designated break area was incidental and de minimis it did not undermine the noncompensable nature of a bona fide meal break under the FLSA.
  • An 11- or 12-minute travel to a designated break area did not allow enough time for employees to use the break for their own purposes to qualify as noncompensable.
(No. 14-60637, (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2015).)

Background

The Navy contracted with Securiguard, Inc. to provide gate guards for a base. The guards worked eight-hour shifts with two scheduled 30-minute meal breaks, which began when a relief officer arrived at the gate in a company car. Securiguard required the guards to travel to a designated break area. Travel time to the break area depended on which gate and shift the guard was assigned to. Some guards had hardly any travel time. For example, guards posted at the:
  • Truck gate could walk to a storage unit just a few yards away.
  • Main gate could drive less than a minute to the base security building.
  • Flightline gate between 6:00 a.m. and midnight could go across the street to a fire station.
However, guards posted at the housing gate or working the graveyard shift at the flightline gate had an 11 or 12 minute roundtrip drive to the nearest break area. Those guards were:
  • Required to use the company car to reach the break areas not within walking distance.
  • Prohibited from eating, drinking, smoking or talking on their phones while in the company car.
Securiguard treated each 30-minute break as a noncompensable "bona fide meal period" under the FLSA (29 C.F.R. § 785.19).
More than 30 guards sued under the FLSA seeking back wages, arguing that the 30-minute meal periods qualifed as compensable time. Securiguard contended that neither 30-minute meal break qualified as compensable time. The district court granted Securiguard's motion for summary judgment.

Outcome

The Fifth Circuit, which had not previously addressed the legal effect of employer-mandated travel time that significantly eats into an otherwise noncompensable meal period, held that:
  • For employees working the main gate, truck gate, or flightline gate between 6:00 a.m. and midnight, the transition time was incidental and de minimis and did not undermine the noncompensable nature of the break under the FLSA. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment for these breaks.
  • Because a jury could find that the remaining meal breaks for guards posted at the housing gate or working the graveyard shift at the flightline gate did not allow enough time for the employees to use the break for their own purposes to qualify as noncompensable, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for these breaks and remanded for further proceedings.
The Fifth Circuit noted that:
  • Under DOL regulations, there are two categories of workplace breaks:
    • rest breaks of short duration (5 to 20 minutes). These breaks promote the efficiency of the employee, are customarily paid for as working time and must be counted as hours worked (29 C.F.R. § 785.18); and
    • bona fide meal periods which are not worktime. These meal periods are usually 30 minutes or more in duration. A shorter period may be long enough under special conditions (29 C.F.R. § 785.19).
  • A shorter rest break is deemed to predominately benefit the employer by reenergizing the employee (29 C.F.R. § 785.18).
  • To the extent transition time to move to another area of the workplace amounts to no more than a couple of minutes, it is incidental and does not undermine the noncompensable nature of the break.
  • At some point however, employer-mandated transition time becomes substantial enough that it may make the break more like the shorter "rest" period. The ten- and 12-minute round-trip drive times at the housing and flightline gates cut into the employee's break time enough to raise doubts about whether the entire period qualifies as noncompensable.
  • The predominant benefit test considers whether:
    • employees are subject to real limitations on their personal freedom which inure to the benefit of the employer;
    • restrictions are placed on the employee's activities during those times;
    • employees remain responsible for substantial work-related duties; and
    • and how frequently employee time is interrupted by work-related duties.
    (Bernard v. IBP, Inc. of Nebraska, 154 F.3d 259, at 265 (5th Cir. 1998).)
  • An employer-mandated requirement (travel time to a designated break area) that deprives the employee of the opportunity to eat during 40% of a 30 minute break strikes at the heart of what the Fifth Circuit and other courts have recognized as the most important consideration, an employee's ability to use the time "for his ... own purposes" (Bernard, 154 F.3d 259, at 265; see also Avery v. City of Talladega, 24 F.3d 1337, 1347 (11th Cir.1994)).
  • A jury could find that preventing an employee from eating for 12 out of 30 minutes during every break is a meaningful limitation on the employee's freedom. The travel obligation therefore cannot be deemed a mere "inconvenience" as a matter of law.
  • If a jury concludes that the 12 minutes predominately benefited Securiguard, the remaining portion of the meal period during which the employee could eat was only 18 minutes, which falls under the bona fide meal period time threshold. However, under Fifth Circuit precedent, the "predominant benefit" test is a typically a fact question on which the employer bears the burden of proof.

Practical Implications

Employers should be aware that when requiring employees to travel during their bona fide meal periods to the extent that the employee's time lost to travel is more than de minimis, the remaining portion of the meal period may fall under the time threshold at which a break is usually deemed noncompensable. The court is even more likely to reach this conclusion when employers place restrictions on employee activity during that travel time by, for example, banning eating and cell phone use.