Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Walking to Lunch on Break? DOL Says That May Be the Employee’s Time, Not the Company’s, (Sep 21, 2026)

Law Firms Mentioned:Barnes & Thornburg

Organizations Mentioned:Barnes & Thornburg, LLP

By Hunter Seidler of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Last week, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued Opinion Letter FLSA2026-11, addressing a question many employers with large or sprawling worksites have faced: does mandatory walk time to a designated break area turn an unpaid meal period into compensable work time? The short answer is no—so long as the remaining break time is still long enough for employees to eat a regular meal.

In this case, a security therapy aide at a detention facility was required to walk three to seven minutes each way to a break area, reducing a 60-minute unpaid lunch to roughly 46—54 minutes of actual sitting time. The WHD concluded that the break remained a bona fide, noncompensable meal period under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because the employee was fully relieved from duty during the break, and the remaining time far exceeded the 30-minute threshold that is “ordinarily sufficient” under 29 C.F.R. §785.19. Importantly, the Division reaffirmed that most circuits apply a “predominant benefit” test—not a “complete relief from duty” standard—meaning that incidental restrictions like a short walk do not automatically convert a meal period into paid time.

The opinion draws a critical line by reference to Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., a Fifth Circuit decision where a 30-minute break was whittled down to as little as 18 minutes by employer-mandated travel, raising a genuine factual question about whether the break was still bona fide. Here, by contrast, even the worst-case scenario left 46 minutes—well above the 30-minute safe harbor.

The WHD emphasized that the length of travel time itself is not determinative; what matters is whether the time remaining after travel is sufficient for the employee to eat and engage in personal activities. The letter also made clear that it addressed only FLSA compensability, not the employee’s separate contractual rights under the applicable collective bargaining agreement—a reminder that a meal period can be lawful under federal wage and hour law while still potentially falling short of CBA obligations.

Although this opinion letter provides an employer-friendly interpretation of FLSA-related regulations and case law, it also serves as a gentle caution to employers to audit their meal break policies. If an employer's scheduled break period is only 30 minutes and travel eats into that window, it may be on shakier ground than the employer in this letter. Additionally, if the workforce is covered by a CBA, remember that the FLSA sets a floor, not a ceiling; employees may have stronger protections under the contract, and grievance exposure is a separate risk from a WHD investigation. Lastly, employers should be mindful of separate state law requirements, which may impose additional compliance issues for meal break pay and reporting.

Hunter Seidler

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

One N. Wacker Drive

Suite 4400

Chicago, IL 60606-2833 United States

Tel.: +1 317 236 1313

E-mail: [email protected]

URL: www.btlaw.com/

Attorneys: Hunter Seidler (Barnes & Thornburg).

ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights WageHour WorkingTime Overtime FederalRegulations ContractClaims