Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—E.D. Mo.: Registered nurse denied collective action challenging hospital’s auto-deduct policy for meal breaks, (Dec 19, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The mere fact that employees have uncompensated meal breaks during which they could be interrupted is not an FLSA violation.

A registered nurse was denied a motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action alleging that a hospital’s policy of automatically deducting 30-minute meal breaks from employees’ paychecks was unlawful. The employee sued alleging the employer violated the FLSA by not paying for meal periods during which employees could be interrupted. At most, a federal district court in Missouri explained, the employee proffered deposition testimony that nurses and technicians could theoretically be called off a meal break for a patient emergency or urgent matter. Thus, the evidence proffered by the employee did not support finding an FLSA violation (Kaiser v. St. Luke’s Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-00786-MAK (E.D. Mo. Dec. 10, 2025)).

Auto-deduct policy. According to her complaint, the employee began working for the employer as a registered nurse in February 2011. The complaint alleged that the employer had a policy of automatically deducting 30-minute meal breaks from direct patient care employees’ paychecks. The employee could cancel the meal break subject to departmental approval. Later, the employer implemented an attestation policy, where employees could override the automatic meal break deduction when clocking out if they worked during their meal break.

The employee sued the employer alleging that it violated the FLSA by not paying her for meal periods during which there was a possibility she could be interrupted and asked to provide patient care. On March 25, 2025, the employee moved to certify a class of nurses and technicians pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b).

Collective action. Here, the court explained, this case is at the first stage of the collective action process. The court must determine whether to send out notice to alleged “similarly situated” employees so that those employees may opt in, if they wish.

According to the Eighth Circuit, “[p]laintiffs may be similarly situated” under FLSA “when they suffer from a single, FLSA-violating policy, and when proof of that policy or of conduct in conformity with that policy proves a violation as to all the plaintiffs.” The plaintiff must “substantially allege” that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan that violated FLSA. More than mere allegations are required. A plaintiff must marshal evidence, such as “detailed allegations supported by affidavits” or deposition testimony.

Conditional certification. In this instance, the employee argued that the class meets the standard for conditional certification. The employer disagreed, arguing that its alleged practices did not violate FLSA. The court agreed that the evidence proffered by the employee did not support finding a FLSA violation. Therefore, the court denied the employee’s motion to conditionally certify a class.

According to the employee, the employer required direct patient care employees to respond to patient needs that arise regardless of whether they are on the floor or on a meal break, meaning that “each and every meal break ‘provided’ to nurses and technicians was subject to interruption.” She argued that being subject to interruption, even if an interruption does not occur, violates the FLSA because nurses and technicians are continuously responsible for their patients. Without more, this does not demonstrate that the meal break is primarily for the benefit of the employer.

The employee did not introduce evidence of similar circumstances but instead offered evidence that there were methods for employees to receive compensation for meal breaks during which they worked. Accordingly, the court denied the employee’s motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action.

The case is No. 4:24-cv-00786-MAK.

Judge: Lanahan, M.

Attorneys: Ricardo J. Prieto (Wage and Hour Firm) for Vicki Kaiser. Ida S. Shafaie (Armstrong Teasdale) for St. Luke's Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals.

Companies: St. Luke's Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals

Cases: WageHour ClassActions WorkingTime MissouriNews