Summary
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employer bears the burden to prove that automatically deducted meal periods are bona fide—i.e., that employees were "completely relieved from duty" under 29 C.F.R. § 785.19—once the employee shows the underlying time is compensable work. The Eleventh Circuit held that Akal Security violated the FLSA by automatically deducting one-hour meal periods from otherwise compensable overtime on empty return flights, because Akal conceded the flights were compensable work and failed to show the meal periods were distinguishable from other idle time. However, the district court properly found Akal acted in good faith (relying on advice of counsel) and did not willfully violate the FLSA, so no liquidated damages were awarded and the two-year statute of limitations applied. The opinion adopts a burden-shifting framework for meal-break cases and clarifies that the "completely relieved from duty" standard governs, not the predominant-benefit test.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Akal's automatic deduction of one-hour meal periods from otherwise compensable overtime violated the FLSA.
- Whether the district court correctly found that Akal acted in good faith and did not willfully violate the FLSA.
Holdings
- Akal's automatic deduction of one-hour meal periods from otherwise compensable overtime violated the FLSA because Akal bore the burden to show that the ASOs were completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals, and it failed to carry that burden.
- The district court correctly found that Akal acted in good faith and did not willfully violate the FLSA. Akal sought advice of counsel and there was no evidence of knowledge or reckless disregard.
Key quotations
“There is a mandatory un-paid 1 hour meal period on each shift. This meal period will be taken by all ASOs and Leads on the return leg of each mission.” (3)
“The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. ... The employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating.” (5)
“Time spent at the employer’s behest is 'work' when it is 'predominantly for the employer’s benefit.' Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 133 (1944).” (4)
Factual background
Akal Security is a government contractor that repatriates persons ordered removed from the United States. It transports detainees on airplanes, staffed with air security officers (ASOs). After transporting detainees, the ASOs must return to the United States on the same aircraft (Empty Return Legs). During these return flights, which carry no detainees, the ASOs have few duties and can sleep, meditate, play video games, or watch TV. Akal acknowledges that under the FLSA, it must pay ASOs for overtime spent on the Empty Return Legs, and generally does so. However, for Empty Return Legs lasting longer than 90 minutes, Akal automatically deducts one hour as a 'meal period' without recording actual meal times. The ASOs sued for unpaid wages.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment to Gelber, holding that Akal's automatic meal-period deductions violated the FLSA. After a bench trial, the court found that Akal had acted in good faith and hadn't willfully violated the FLSA. Akal appealed the summary judgment ruling, and Gelber cross-appealed the good faith and willfulness findings.