801 F.3d 501
5th Cir.2015Background
- Guards employed by Securiguard staffed gates at Naval Air Station Meridian, working eight-hour shifts with two scheduled 30‑minute meal breaks.
- Breaks began when a relief officer arrived in a company car; guards were required to remain armed and in uniform and, at some posts, to travel (in company cars) to a designated break area before eating.
- Travel times to the nearest permitted eating location varied by post and shift: as little as a walk of a few yards or a one‑minute drive, and at the longest an 11–12 minute roundtrip drive on certain posts/shifts.
- Securiguard treated each full 30‑minute period (including mandated travel) as a noncompensable bona fide meal period and did not pay for that time.
- Plaintiffs brought an FLSA collective action seeking back pay; the district court granted summary judgment for Securiguard, finding the restrictions insubstantial. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer‑mandated travel that substantially reduces time available to eat converts a 30‑minute meal period into compensable time under the FLSA | Naylor: Travel time that cuts into the 30 minutes (e.g., 11–12 minute roundtrip) leaves too little time to use the break for personal purposes, so the period is compensable | Securiguard: The 30‑minute period is a bona fide meal break; required use of company vehicles and uniform rules are mere inconveniences and not compensable duties | Travel time that is de minimis (couple minutes) may leave the period noncompensable; but where travel substantially erodes eating time (e.g., ~11–12 minutes roundtrip) a jury could find the break compensable — summary judgment reversed as to those posts/shifts and affirmed as to de minimis travel situations |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on all claims | Plaintiffs: Predominant‑benefit inquiry is factbound; summary judgment improper where travel substantially limits personal time | Securiguard: Restrictions are insubstantial as a matter of law, so summary judgment was proper | Affirmed in part (main gate, truck gate, flightline shifts with minimal travel); reversed and remanded in part for jury determination where travel significantly cut into break time |
Key Cases Cited
- Henson v. Pulaski Cty. Sheriff Dep’t, 6 F.3d 531 (8th Cir. 1993) (short incidental transition time does not undermine a bona fide meal period)
- Lee v. Coahoma Cty., 937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1991) (compensability of short meal breaks is factbound; travel paid in that case rendered the 30‑minute threshold inapplicable)
- Bernard v. IBP, Inc. of Neb., 154 F.3d 259 (5th Cir. 1998) (adopts predominant‑benefit test to determine meal‑period compensability; factual inquiry for trier of fact)
- Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc., 899 F.2d 1407 (5th Cir. 1990) (short waiting times may be too brief for employees to use for their own purposes)
- Avery v. City of Talladega, 24 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 1994) (focus on whether employees are free to spend meal breaks as they wish)
- Reich v. S. New Eng. Telecomms. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (meal break compensable where employer required employees to remain on‑site)
- Hartsell v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Tex., 207 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2000) (predominant‑benefit test is a question of fact)
- Ruffin v. MotorCity Casino, 775 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2015) (restrictions that do not sufficiently limit freedom may still support noncompensable meal periods)
- Gilbert v. Donahoe, 751 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)