Last week, a unanimous Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a FLSA overtime compensation collective action complaint involving automatic unpaid lunch breaks and the denial of an informal request to again amend the complaint. Westerling v. East Tennessee Children’s Hospital Ass’n, No. 25-5744 (6th Cir. March 10, 2026). The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to allege that he performed any substantial or compensable duties for his employer during his lunch breaks simply by monitoring his radio. The Complaint did not, for instance, allege that he was frequently interrupted by substantial duties, which could have been compensable. The Complaint also failed to describe how other employees performed substantial or compensable work during their uncompensated lunch breaks. The Court also affirmed the denial of request to amend the complaint again because the plaintiff had failed to make a formal motion or attach a proposed complaint which might have cured its existing deficiencies.
According to the Court’s decision, the named plaintiff security
guard alleged that he was not completely relieved of duties during his lunch
break because he had to monitor his radio for emergency calls or events. However, the hospital employer automatically
deducted 30 minutes for a lunch break every day. Accordingly, he alleged that he was owed
unpaid overtime. Nonetheless, the
district court found that he had failed to allege a plausible FLSA claim and dismissed
the complaint. It also denied his
belated request to amend his complaint (for a second time) to allege that he
had been regularly interrupted during this lunch break because he failed to
attach a proposed amended complaint to a motion to amend which would have
plausibly cured the current defective pleading.
The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court observed that employers are not required to pay
employees for lunch breaks unless
the time is “spent predominantly
for the employer’s benefit.” . . . “But as long as the employee can pursue his
or her mealtime adequately and comfortably, is not engaged in the performance
of any substantial duties, and does not spend time predominantly for the
employer’s benefit, the employee is relieved of duty and is not entitled to
compensation under the FLSA.”
The complaint fails to plausibly
state a FLSA overtime claim. In the complaint, [the plaintiff] alleges that,
during meal breaks, he was required to monitor his radio and “respond if some
event arose.” . . . But “monitoring a radio [during a meal
break], and being available to respond if called, . . . is not a substantial
job duty.” . . . It is thus not compensable. If [his] lunch
breaks were frequently interrupted because he was responding to calls, that
could be compensable. . . . . But the
complaint does not tell us that [he] was frequently interrupted. Instead, it
just makes the conclusory assertion that [he] “was not completely relieved of
his duties during his daily meal breaks” and that “he did not receive bona fide
meal break periods.” . . . The complaint must include more to cross the
line from possibility to plausibility. .
. . . [He] needed to describe the work he did rather than assert the conclusion
that he performed work. . . . He did not do so. As a result, the complaint
fails to plead sufficient facts showing that his meal periods were compensable
time under the FLSA.
The Court also rejected the argument that the general collective
allegations that other employees performed work during their unpaid
lunch breaks could cure his failure to allege that he performed substantial
work during his unpaid lunch breaks. “But the complaint says as little about
the work done by other Children’s Hospital employees during meal breaks as it
does about [his] work. So even if we could attribute allegations surrounding
their work to [him], there would be little, if anything, to supplement.”
Finally, the Court found that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying an informal request to again amend the complaint
to cure the factual deficiencies when the plaintiff failed to make a formal
motion or attached a proposed complaint which would have cured the
deficiencies. “A district court does not
abuse its discretion when denying leave to amend where the plaintiff “neither
moved formally to amend nor proffered a proposed amended complaint.”
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert
you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
