Dean v. Akal Security, 3 F.4th 137

ICE contracted with Akal Security to provide Aviation Security Officers (ASOs) for deportation flights; ASOs were nonexempt, hourly employees who monitored deportees and assisted on flights.
Akal had a policy automatically deducting a mandatory unpaid 1‑hour meal period on each shift’s return leg when (a) the return flight exceeded 90 minutes and (b) no detainees were on board; exceptions preserved pay when detainees were present or the return leg was under 90 minutes.
Plaintiffs (ASOs) sued under the FLSA, claiming the deducted hour was compensable (either travel time or not a bona fide meal) and that unpaid time triggered overtime liability; the district court granted summary judgment for Akal; plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of the minimum‑wage claim.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed DOL travel and meal‑period regulations (notably 29 C.F.R. §785.19 and travel provisions) and framed the key question whether a bona fide unpaid meal period can exist during otherwise compensable return travel.
Applying this circuit’s predominant‑benefit test (factors from Bernard), the court concluded ASOs routinely received at least one uninterrupted hour, restrictions were inherent to flying (not employer‑imposed for Akal’s benefit), and interruptions were infrequent and not substantial.
Court affirmed summary judgment: the one‑hour breaks qualified as bona fide unpaid meal periods under the FLSA and applicable DOL regulations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entire empty return flight time is compensable travel time, precluding unpaid meal deductions	Return travel is part of principal activity (29 C.F.R. §785.38); time returning to base to perform post‑flight duties is compensable, so no unpaid meal may be deducted	No DOL regulation bars a bona fide meal during travel; travel rules do not inherently preclude unpaid meal periods	Court: Regulations do not prohibit unpaid bona fide meal periods during travel; no categorical bar to meal period on return flights
Whether the 1‑hour automatic deduction was a bona fide unpaid meal period under the FLSA	The deduction was not a bona fide meal: ASOs faced restrictions (couldn’t leave plane, limited device use), had ongoing responsibilities, and were not completely free; meal must be regularly scheduled and free from employer benefit	The periods met 29 C.F.R. §785.19 and this circuit’s predominant‑benefit test: ASOs had at least one hour free, interruptions were rare, and mobility limits were inherent to flight (not for employer’s benefit)	Court: Under the predominant‑benefit test, ASOs predominantly benefited; restrictions were inherent to air travel and did not negate a bona fide meal period; the one‑hour deduction was lawful

Bernard v. IBP, Inc. of Neb., 154 F.3d 259 (5th Cir. 1998) (adopts and explains the predominant‑benefit test and factors for bona fide meal periods)
Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., 801 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2015) (applies predominant‑benefit test; addresses summary judgment in meal‑period context)
Lee v. Coahoma Cnty., 937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1991) (holds catch‑as‑catch‑can meal breaks can be bona fide; discusses regularity argument)
Ruffin v. MotorCity Casino, 775 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2015) (meal breaks with limited monitoring may still be noncompensable)
White v. Baptist Mem’l Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869 (6th Cir. 2012) (automatic meal deductions do not per se violate the FLSA)
Busk v. Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc., 713 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses a stricter "completely relieved" standard for meal periods)
Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (U.S. 1944) (FLSA can require compensation for inactive time when duties restrict freedom)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for deferring to reasonable agency interpretations)
Vela v. City of Hous., 276 F.3d 659 (5th Cir. 2001) (courthouse deference to DOL regulations under Chevron)