Skip to main content

The Time Drivers Spent on Lunch Breaks Being “Ready” Was NOT Work Under the FLSA

 

Belgada v. Hy’s Livery Service, Inc. - Hartford District Superior Court


Facts:  Hy’s Livery Service, Inc. (“Hy’s”) is a limo company that employs limo drivers.  Hy’s has a written policy in place in regard to meal breaks.  The policy allows drivers a one hour unpaid lunch break but requires drivers to stay dressed in work clothes, monitor their phones, and requires drivers to not leave the limos unattended.  If a driver is called while on their lunch break, they are paid for their time.  However, the policy did not require drivers to watch the vehicles 24/7.

A proposed class action was filed against Hy’s, arguing that drivers were entitled to pay for this time spent on their lunch breaks as they were “ready” for work.  Both sides filed motions for summary judgment.

Holding:  The Court got straight to the point and recognized that when drivers went on their lunch break, they were completely relieved of duty.  Before the lunch break started, a driver only needed to keep his uniform on, his phone on, and the limo close by.  In fact, one driver in the proposed class stated that during a lunch break, he went to a race track to make a bet.  In doing so, the Court found that “no reasonable fact finder could see these mild conditions as putting the chauffeurs to work.”  Quite simply, this time on lunch break, being “ready” to work, was not compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judgment:  The Hartford District Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Hy’s on the grounds that its drivers being “ready” for work on their lunch break was not compensable time.

The Takeaway:  As the saying goes, context is king.  In this instance, the facts as set out in the opinion (which were largely undisputed), left little to no room for the drivers to make a valid claim that the time spent on their lunch breaks, being “ready” for work, amounted to compensable time.  Had the facts been different and these drivers required to perform work tasks while on their lunch breaks, it is likely they could have at least survived summary judgment and made it to trial.  However, simply being “ready” for work while still having the freedom to do what they wanted while on their lunch breaks left the Court with no other conclusion to reach than finding in favor of the employer.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Moukawsher

Date:  April 13, 2021

Opinion:  https://www.scribd.com/document/503955047/Limo-Driver-Decision

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more