Ogletree Deakins: Massachusetts Superior Court Holds That Meal Breaks Are Compensable Unless Employees Are Relieved of All Work-Related Duties | Practical Law

Ogletree Deakins: Massachusetts Superior Court Holds That Meal Breaks Are Compensable Unless Employees Are Relieved of All Work-Related Duties | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. addresses DeVito v. Longwood Security Services, Inc., in which the Massachusetts Superior Court held that employees must be paid for meal breaks, unless they are relieved of all work-related duties during the break. The court held that requiring employees to remain in uniform, stay in their assigned sectors, and keep their radios on during unpaid 30-minute meal breaks violated Massachusetts wage and hour and overtime laws. The court also noted that since the state law already specified the "relieved of all work duties" standard to determine if an unpaid break should be considered compensable time, there was no need to apply the more lenient "predominant benefit" test, which the court found to be unique to federal law.

Ogletree Deakins: Massachusetts Superior Court Holds That Meal Breaks Are Compensable Unless Employees Are Relieved of All Work-Related Duties

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Law stated as at 15 Feb 2017Massachusetts
This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. addresses DeVito v. Longwood Security Services, Inc., in which the Massachusetts Superior Court held that employees must be paid for meal breaks, unless they are relieved of all work-related duties during the break. The court held that requiring employees to remain in uniform, stay in their assigned sectors, and keep their radios on during unpaid 30-minute meal breaks violated Massachusetts wage and hour and overtime laws. The court also noted that since the state law already specified the "relieved of all work duties" standard to determine if an unpaid break should be considered compensable time, there was no need to apply the more lenient "predominant benefit" test, which the court found to be unique to federal law.