Eighth Circuit reverses and remands case on alleged Fair Labor Standards Act transgression

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgement in favor of a company accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by deducting employee’s pay for meal breaks they were expected to work through.

Acting Secretary of Labor Vince Micone sued the defendant, Levering Regional Health Care Center and Reliant Care Management Company, for violating the act and deducting 30 minutes of pay for meal breaks that employees routinely worked through.

The suit follows an investigation by the DOL into the workplace where a DOL investigator interviewed over 40 employees. The investigator specifically audited the company from 2018-2020.

Most of the employees who were interviewed worked in the facility’s nursing department and many told the investigator they “either never received a lunch break or frequently had their lunch breaks interrupted.”

These employees told the investigator they either couldn’t take a break because no one was able to relieve them of their duties, or they simply did not have time because of the work they were expected to complete.

During this audit period, the company automatically deducted 30 minutes for a paid break from each of the employees’ pay and had an “unwritten policy,” that employees were to sign if they had to work through their break to receive compensation.

Several of the employees interviewed by the investigator, including at least one supervisor, indicated that they did not know about this policy.

The DOL filed suit soon after the investigation was completed.

The appeal comes from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri which granted Levering’s motion for summary judgement.

The district court granted the judgement for two primary reasons, according to the Eighth Circuit.

“First, relying heavily on Levering’s time sheet policy and employees’ failure to use it, the district court concluded that no reasonable jury could find Levering had actual or constructive knowledge of its employees’ overtime hours,” the circuit court wrote in its opinion. “Second, even if Levering knew or should have known of the employees’ overtime work, the district court found that the Secretary failed to adequately establish the amount of overtime Levering owed.”

In its opinion the circuit court wrote that the burden of tracking employees’ overtime work was on the employer and that the employee cannot be denied recovery under FLSA if the employer fails to do this.

Instead, according to the court’s interpretation of Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., the employee must present “sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.”

While Levering argued before the district court that the DOL secretary did not meet this burden and also must show the specific amount and extent of overtime work, the court pointed out the Secretary only needs to submit “sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference,” quoting Carmody v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners.

“Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the Secretary has met this burden,” the court said, reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz dissented.

“While I agree that the mere existence of a policy or process for reporting overtime work is not dispositive as to whether an employer lacks constructive knowledge of overtime work, I believe the Secretary failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Levering had a reasonable policy in place,” Grasz said.

The case is: Vince Micone v. Levering Regional Health Care Center et al, Case no. 23-3683.