DOL Says Employees’ Choice To Leave the Premises Doesn’t Trigger Meal Period Pay

Key takeaways

• The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL) recently issued Opinion Letter FLSA2026-7, addressing whether an employer must consider time an employee voluntarily spends traveling off site for a meal when determining whether a meal period is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 
• The DOL concluded that where an employer provides a 30-minute meal period during which employees are relieved from duty and may remain on-site, the meal period is bona fide and noncompensable, even if employees who choose to leave the premises experience reduced usable time due to travel and security delays.

The scenario at issue

An employee at a large, secured corporate campus submitted the request for an opinion. The employee stated that the distance between the job site and the parking lot required a walk of five to 10 minutes, plus additional time additional time was required to pass through security gates. The employer provided an unpaid 30-minute meal period during which employees may remain on-site or leave the premises. The employee claimed that, because travel time leaves only 10 to 15 minutes for an off-site meal, the arrangement created a “coercive dynamic” that should render the break compensable.

Legal framework

The FLSA does not require employers to provide meal periods; however, when such breaks are provided, DOL regulations govern their compensability. Under 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a), “[b]ona fide meal periods are not worktime,” and to be “bona fide,” the employee must be relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. Typically, 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. Critically, § 785.19(b) provides that “[i]t is not necessary that an employee be permitted to leave the premises” if the employee is “freed from duties during the meal period.” Courts have held that requiring employees to remain on the premises or imposing minimal restrictions during a meal period does not convert it into compensable time. Ruffin v. MotorCity Casino, 775 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2015) (Casino security guards’ meal breaks were not compensable under the FLSA because, although they had to stay onsite and monitor radios, they remained free to eat and socialize.); see also Haviland v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, Corp., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1062 (S.D. Iowa, 2010) (Collecting cases showing that “substantial law supports a finding that merely requiring an employee to remain on the employer’s premises does not convert meal break time into compensable working time.”).

DOL analysis on meal breaks

The DOL concluded that the employer provides a bona fide meal period consistent with 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 because employees are relieved from work duties during the 30-minute break, and the period is sufficient to allow them to eat on-site. Because the employer may lawfully require employees to remain on the premises, the fact that a voluntary off-site meal may be difficult to undertake in the time provided does not affect whether the break is bona fide. For the same reason, no obligation exists for an employer to treat as compensable time an employee voluntarily spends traveling off-site to acquire or eat a meal. The DOL further noted that the requestor did not indicate that the employer required employees to work during the meal period, and the employer relieved employees from work responsibilities during that time. 

Key implications for employers

• Voluntary off-site travel does not convert a meal break into compensable time. Where an employer provides a 30-minute meal period during which employees are relieved from duty and may use the time on-site for eating or personal activities, the fact that employees who voluntarily choose to leave the premises have less usable time does not render the break compensable. 
• On-premises restrictions remain permissible. Consistent with longstanding DOL guidance and federal court precedent, an employer may require employees to remain on-site during a meal period or impose minimal restrictions without converting the break into compensable work time. Employers, however, should ensure that they are not requiring the employee to work during that period. 
• State and local laws may differ. The DOL cautioned that applicable state and local wage-and-hour laws may impose requirements more stringent than those under the FLSA, and employers should ensure compliance with all applicable jurisdictions. 

The DOL’s opinion letter underscores the importance of structuring meal periods to clearly relieve employees from duty and provide sufficient time for on-site use. The DOL reaffirmed that a meal period of 30 minutes or more is typically sufficient to qualify as bona fide, provided the employee is relieved from duty. However, employers need not provide more time for voluntary off-site travel. Given the DOL’s reminder regarding state and local law, employers operating in multiple jurisdictions should also review whether more protective standards apply. Employers with questions about this guidance should consult experienced counsel.