132 F.4th 1074
8th Cir.2025Background
- The U.S. Secretary of Labor sued Levering Regional Health Care Center and Reliant Care Management for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying employees for work during meal periods due to automatic 30-minute lunch deductions.
- Levering had a policy requiring employees who worked through lunch to submit a signed Temporary Time Sheet to get paid, but during the two-year audit period, no such forms were produced.
- Department of Labor interviewed over 40 employees; many reported rarely or never getting lunch breaks and several did not know about the reimbursement policy.
- Evidence showed a dramatic increase in use of the time sheet policy after the audit period, raising questions about whether the policy was effectively communicated during the relevant time.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Levering, concluding no reasonable jury could find that Levering had actual or constructive knowledge of uncompensated work or that the Secretary had proven the amount of overtime owed.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding genuine disputes about Levering’s knowledge and the extent of unpaid work, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Levering had constructive knowledge of uncompensated work during meal breaks | Levering knew/should have known from employee circumstances and failure to submit time sheets | Levering had a reasonable reporting process; employees failed to use it | Genuine dispute exists; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether the Secretary met the burden to establish the amount of unpaid overtime | Employee interviews and payroll records provide a just and reasonable inference | Secretary failed to show extent/amount of uncompensated time | Sufficient evidence for jury; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether a reporting policy is per se sufficient to avoid constructive knowledge | Policy must be reasonable and known to employees; here, some didn’t know the policy | Policy was reasonable, most employees knew/of training | Whether policy was reasonable is a jury question |
| Whether automatic deduction unrebutted by forms bars FLSA liability | Absence of forms suggests policy was not effectively communicated or used | Absence shows no work was performed during lunch or reporting procedure worked | Absence of forms could support liability if policy wasn’t communicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Hertz v. Woodbury Cnty., 566 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2009) (sets standard for compensability of meal breaks under the FLSA and constructive knowledge)
- Reich v. Stewart, 121 F.3d 400 (8th Cir. 1997) (employer cannot escape FLSA liability by prohibiting or failing to pay for work it knew occurred)
- Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc., 771 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2014) (relaxed evidentiary standard for proving hours worked when employer fails to keep adequate records)
- Fast v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., 638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011) (burden shifts to the employer if records are inadequate; reasonable inference standard for proving unpaid work)
- Henson v. Pulaski Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 6 F.3d 531 (8th Cir. 1993) (compensability of meal breaks is a fact-specific inquiry)