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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more