United States: Third Circuit Rules That "Predominant Benefit" Test Determines FLSA Meal Period Compensability

Last Updated: December 4 2015
Article by Mark Stanisz

On November 24, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in Babcock v. Butler County, that a meal period is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") when the "predominant benefit" of the mealtime belongs to the employee. The decision announces the standard for determining whether a union or non-union employee of a private or public employer in the Third Circuit (which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands) is entitled to compensation during a meal period.

Legal Background And Facts

Under the FLSA regulations (which are not legally binding but highly-persuasive guidance), rest periods of five minutes to about twenty minutes "must be counted as hours worked." On the other hand, "bona fide meal periods" of thirty minutes or more are ordinarily "not worktime" although shorter periods may qualify as unpaid meal periods under special circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 785.18; id. § 785.19.* Against this backdrop, a group of correctional officers ("officers") sued their employer alleging that they were not properly compensated under the FLSA. The officers' collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") specified a shift length of eight and one-quarter hours, including a one hour meal period. In practice, the one hour meal period was broken into a paid forty-five minute period and an unpaid fifteen minute period. The CBA was silent on the compensability of the fifteen minute period, and the officers contended that the fifteen minute period should be compensated because during it they were bound by certain restrictions. In particular, during the meal period the officers were:

  1. not permitted to leave the employer's premises without permission
  2. required to remain in uniform
  3. obliged to stay in close proximity to emergency response equipment, and
  4. on call to respond to emergencies.

The Third Circuit Adopts The "Predominant Benefit" Test

The Third Circuit first decided which of two tests determines meal period compensability. The Court quickly rejected the "relieved from all duties during the mealtime" test. It should be noted that this is the test in the DOL regulation on this issue. The regulation provides, in pertinent part, that during a "bona fide meal period," 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." 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a). Instead, the Court adopted the "predominant benefit" test. The Court noted that its conclusion was consistent with the majority of the courts of appeals to have addressed the issue. The parties notably did not dispute that the predominant benefit test applied. The Court then explained the predominant benefit test, describing it as a fact-intensive, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry that requires analysis of "whether the [employee] is primarily engaged in work-related duties during meal periods." Slip. Op. at 6. The Court canvassed factors that other courts have looked to when applying the test, including whether employees are:

  1. permitted to leave the premises during a meal period
  2. disrupted frequently during a meal period
  3. allowed to take a meal period without first seeking permission
  4. limited in what they may read during the meal period
  5. bound by any meal period provision in a CBA that evidences an "agreed-upon characterization" of the meal period, id. at 10.

The Panel Splits On How The Test Applies To The Officers' Allegations

The majority, in an opinion by Judge Sloviter, concluded that, on balance, the officers' alleged meal period restrictions did not predominantly benefit the employer and thus the fifteen minute meal period was not compensable. For this reason, the majority affirmed the district court's grant of the employer's motion to dismiss. The majority's conclusion was grounded on two major premises. First, the officers' alleged restrictions were insufficient as a matter of law to thwart their ability to pass the mealtime without being primarily engaged in official responsibilities, especially when compared to the "cadre of case law addressing mealtime compensability in the law enforcement context[.]" Id. at 9. The majority placed great stock in the officers' ability to both request authorization to leave for lunch and eat away from their desks. Second, the majority found that the CBA provided officers "with the benefit of a partially-compensated mealtime and mandatory overtime pay if the mealtime is interrupted by work." Id. The majority concluded that the FLSA required no more. Id. Judge Greenaway, in dissent, would have reversed the district court's dismissal of the Complaint. The dissent's balancing of the restrictions on the officers' use of the fifteen minute portion of the meal period led it to the conclusion that the meal period was compensable. Judge Greenaway reasoned that because the officers were required to be prepared to serve at a moment's notice for the entirety of the meal period, they were required to maintain a physical and mental readiness for the employer's benefit regardless of the CBA. Judge Greenaway also was troubled by the majority's resolution of this fact-specific inquiry before the officers' had an opportunity to conduct discovery.

What Babcock Means For Employers

Babcock makes clear that, although the predominant benefit test applies in the Third Circuit, it is not a bright-line rule. The test turns on the balancing of multiple factors that could lead reasonable minds to reach divergent conclusions about whether the employer or the employee is the predominant beneficiary of a meal period. Indeed, the majority and dissenting Babcock opinions reached opposite conclusions on the same facts. The decision should nevertheless give employers some comfort that modest restrictions on their employees' use of an uncompensated meal period will not convert it into a compensated meal period under the FLSA. Although the frequency and nature of mealtime interruptions was not an issue squarely before the Third Circuit in Babcock, the majority opinion suggests that de minimis interruptions to a meal period may be insufficient to transmute a non-compensable meal period into a compensable one. As noted earlier, the Babcock decision is inconsistent with the DOL regulation on this issue. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the DOL will apply the Babcock factors in a way that favors compensability of meal periods. If an employee experiences more than a de minimis interruption during a meal period, an employer wanting to avoid legal risk should pay for the break. It is also important to remember that applicable state wage and hour laws may have rules and requirements that are more stringent than the FLSA's requirements. By way of example, under Pennsylvania and California wage and hour laws, when an employee is required by the employer to remain at the employer's premises, that time is compensable. Under New York law, in contrast, there is no rule that requires an employee to be permitted to leave the work premises during an uncompensated meal period. Remember: employees get the benefit of federal or state law, whichever is more favorable. Babcock also has an impact on employers with a unionized workforce. Although a CBA's characterization of a meal period is not dispositive of FLSA liability (or a defense to it), Babcock allows the characterization to be used as one factor in the predominant benefit analysis. Employers who find themselves negotiating CBAs must similarly view the proposed compensation and meal period restrictions in total to determine whether there is any risk of FLSA meal period liability. In summary, the predominant benefit test may be a powerful employer defense that will enable an employer to maintain uncompensated meal periods and still impose some restrictions on their usage (at least under federal law). Nevertheless, an employer taking cover behind the predominant benefit test still may incur large litigation costs to prevail on this defense in any individual or collective or class action litigation. Employers, therefore, should remain vigilant with regard to their policies and practices when it comes to compensating for meal and other breaks.

* Employers should also be aware that attorneys in Duane Morris' Employment, Labor, Benefits and Immigration practice group have represented employers in Department of Labor ("DOL") audits where the DOL's position has been that any break that is fewer than thirty minutes must be paid. Further, this is the law and/or enforcement position in some states, such as New Jersey. For this reason, generally, we advise employers ordinarily to compensate employees for all meal periods that are fewer than thirty minutes or that are thirty minutes or more but interrupted.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions