Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—W.D. Wash.: Delta airport employee’s claims of interrupted meal and rest periods dismissed, (Dec 19, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Delta moved for dismissal on grounds that the complaint alleged the statutory elements without sufficient factual matter to satisfy federal pleading standards.

Delta Air Lines was entitled to dismissal of class-action claims alleging that it violated Washington labor law by failing to compensate employees for noncompliant meal and rest periods, withholding wages, and failure to pay overtime wages, among other claims, ruled a federal district court in Washington. Viewed as a whole, the plaintiff’s complaint recited the statutory elements and alleged Delta maintained unlawful systems and practices without sufficient factual detail. Her bare-bones allegations that Delta maintained unlawful systems that did not enable employees to record missed or interrupted breaks were not, without more, sufficient (Valdovinos v. Delta Air Lines Inc., No. C25-2026-SKV (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 2025)).

The employee worked for Delta Air Lines as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport from 2018 through November 2024. She originally filed suit in state court alleging five claims under Washington law: (1) failure to compensate employees for legally noncompliant meal and rest periods; (2) willful and intentional withholding of wages; (3) violation of Washington’s Minimum Wage Act; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; and (5) record keeping violations. Delta removed the case to federal court.

Statutory framework. Washington law establishes various requirements for breaks and compensation relevant to this case. First, employees must be allowed a meal period lasting at least 30 minutes. Second, employees must be allowed rest periods of 10 or more minutes, on the employer’s time, for every four hours of work. Third, employers must pay employees at least minimum wage for hours worked.

According to the employee, Delta violated these requirements in various ways throughout her tenure. She seeks to represent a class current and former non-exempt hourly-paid employees who worked for Delta at any location in Washington State in the position(s) of airport customer service representative, Red Coat supervisor, ticket agent, gate agent, baggage handler, ramp agent, customer assistance representative, and other “above-ground” positions.

Meal and rest periods. The employee alleged that Delta required or permitted her to “occasionally” or “sometimes” work through meal and rest periods, without compensation, due to her workload and understaffing. Specifically, she alleged she “would sometimes receive calls over her work radio and was expected to and did respond to these work-related communications during meal periods, resulting in interrupted meal periods and off-the-clock work during unpaid meal periods.” She contended that Delta automatically deducted 30 minutes or more from paid time per shift, regardless of whether the employee or putative class members worked through some or all of their meal and rest periods and did not have a system that allowed employees to report interrupted, shortened, or missed meal periods.

The employee also challenged the timing and location of breaks. She alleged that she and putative class members were “forced” to take meal and rest breaks at their workstations because it was “impractical to reach any designated break areas” during breaks. Further, she asserted “many” of her meal periods had to be taken after her fifth hour of work due to her workload and that, “at times,” she was required to work for more than three hours without a rest period. Finally, she alleged that the Delta “had no policy or practice to schedule meal or rest periods,” while claiming off-the-clock work performed before shifts was not accounted for by the employer “during any scheduling of meal periods.”

Minimum and overtime wages. According to the employee, she typically worked shifts that were 10 and one-half hours long, five days per week. She also alleged that, at times, the employer required her and putative class members to complete work tasks off the clock, resulting in Delta’s failure to compensate them for all hours worked and the underpayment of wages owed. She further alleged that she was not compensated for all days worked and business expenses incurred. Finally, the employee alleged that Delta failed to incorporate unspecified “non-discretionary compensation” into the rate used to calculate her and the putative class members’ overtime rates.

Pleadings. Plaintiffs must now “allege at least one workweek” in which a wage or overtime violation occurred to survive a motion to dismiss, the court observed. Alleging the statutory elements or a violative system, without more, is insufficient. “With the pleading of more specific facts, the closer the complaint moves toward plausibility” and away from mere possibility.

The court further noted that it consistently requires wage and hour claims to “be supported by facts that demonstrate that each named Plaintiff did not receive minimum wage or overtime compensation in a particular workweek,” or with a certain frequency.

Motion to dismiss. Here, Delta moved for dismissal on grounds that the complaint alleged the statutory elements without sufficient factual matter to satisfy federal pleading standards. The court agreed that the plaintiff’s factual allegations are too sparse to state a claim but granted her leave to amend her complaint because the defects are likely curable.

Viewed as a whole, the plaintiff’s complaint recited the statutory elements and alleged Delta maintained unlawful systems and practices, but without sufficient factual detail. With respect to her meal and rest period claims, she did not identify any particular week or period in which the alleged violations occurred, nor the frequency.

Overtime claims. With respect to the plaintiff’s overtime claims, her allegations lacked sufficient specificity. Though she stated that she “typically” worked 10 and one-half hour shifts five days per week, she did not specify how much of that time constituted her regularly scheduled shift as opposed to allegedly uncompensated or undercompensated time. Nor did she make clear whether her calculation included time navigating to and from the parking lot, for which she now seeks compensation. Additionally, the plaintiff did not specify what non-discretionary compensation was omitted from her regular rate of pay for overtime rate calculation purposes.

Business expenses. Regarding uncompensated business expenses, the plaintiff did not allege how often she incurred business expenses or how much she spent. She alleged that she used a work radio while at work and that she also incurred personal cell phone expenses because of Delta’s requirement that she use her cell phone for extensive work-related communications. She did not, however, allege the expenses she incurred because of Delta’s requirements or detail the frequency and nature of communications conducted using her cell phone as opposed to her work-issued radio. The plaintiff also did not allege what work-mandated apparel she purchased, how much it cost, or how frequently she purchased it. Similarly, the plaintiff did not allege whether certain company events, for which she alleged she needed to purchase or prepare food while off the clock, were mandatory or voluntary, their frequency, or how much time and money she expended.

Finally, the plaintiff did not allege any work-related tasks that she performed while transiting from the parking lot to her work area, despite her claims that her transit time was unlawfully uncompensated, undercompensated, and a cause of unlawful break delays.

Without more, the court concluded, the plaintiff’s complaint was not clear enough to put Delta on notice and raised only the possibility of liability, not plausible under-compensation claims for work performed in specific shifts or weeks.

Because the plaintiff’s allegations did not include sufficient factual matter to state a claim, the court granted Delta’s motion to dismiss.

The case is No. C25-2026-SKV.

Judge: Vaughan, S.

Attorneys: Jamie K. Serb (Crosner Legal) for Mireya Valdovinos. Andrew P. Frederick (Morgan Lewis & Bockius) for Delta Air Lines Inc.

Companies: Delta Air Lines Inc.

Cases: StateLawClaims WageHour ClassActions WorkingTime Overtime MinimumWage WashingtonNews