Minnesota Law Regarding Mandatory Meal Breaks

Employers are being confronted with a sky-rocketing number of lawsuits under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and its state law counterparts. These claims are made on a variety of bases, including that employees supposedly are wrongly classified as exempt and are not paid for all time worked.

A recent court case has created a split between Minnesota federal and state courts regarding whether Minnesota employers are required to give employees who work more than eight hours a minimum of 30 uninterrupted minutes as a meal break.

The Minnesota Meal Break Law provides in pertinent part:

Meal break. An employer must permit each employee who is working for eight or more consecutive hours sufficient time to eat a meal.

Payment not required. Nothing in this section requires the employer to pay the employee during the meal break.

Minn. Stat. § 177.254, subds. 1 and 2. Because that law does not expressly require a minimum period or define what is "sufficient time," some employers have felt free to schedule meal periods less than thirty minutes (even though shorter breaks may be required to be paid).

However, Judge Patrick Schiltz of the United States District Court for Minnesota concluded in Frank v. Gold ‘n Plump Poultry, Inc., Case No. 04-CV-1018 (D. Minn. 2007), that the Minnesota law requires an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period in the absence of "special conditions." Judge Schiltz based his decision on a rule issued by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. The state rule provides that "Thirty minutes is ordinarily long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be adequate under special conditions." Minnesota Rule 5200.0125. Judge Schiltz reached that conclusion even though the federal rule from which the key language in the state rule was drawn generally has been interpreted to address only when a meal break must be paid, not how long the break must be. Judge Schiltz did not define what "special circumstance" would be sufficient to justify a meal break of less than thirty minutes, although he did find that an employee choosing to take a 20-minute paid break rather than a 30-minute unpaid break is a "special circumstance."

Judge Schiltz expressly disagreed with an earlier state court decision. In that case, a state court judge interpreted the Minnesota Meal Break Law in a manner consistent with interpretations of the federal rule and held that the Minnesota Meal Break Law did not require that employers give a minimum of 30 uninterrupted minutes for a meal break. Employers should note that a federal district court decision bears no more weight than a state district court decision, particularly when that federal court is interpreting state law.

Moreover, it is our understanding that the enforcement posture of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has not changed and that it does not interpret the Meal Break Law as requiring a minimum meal period of any specific amount of time. Instead, we believe the department will focus on whether an employee received a bona fide meal period or whether the break should be considered compensable work time.

With the split between a Minnesota federal trial court and a Minnesota state trial court regarding whether Minnesota employers must give employees working more than eight consecutive hours a meal break of at least 30 uninterrupted minutes, employers may be confused as to what they are now required to do. Unfortunately, this issue will remain unclear until it is clarified by either the Minnesota legislature or its appellate courts, and employers now may be exposed to claims based on the federal court's interpretation requiring a mandatory 30-minute uninterrupted meal period. In any event, employers should remember that meal breaks of less than 30 minutes are generally considered compensable work time.