Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—WORKING TIME—5th Cir.: Court affirms class certification in employees’ meal breaks suit against psychiatric hospital, (Aug 20, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The employees allege that the hospital’s policies and their own professional ethical duties functionally required them to be on call for the breaks.

Support staff at a psychiatric hospital run by Ochsner-Acadia, L.L.C., were entitled to Rule 23(f) certification of their Louisiana unjust enrichment and conversion claims alleging that the employer, despite providing them with nominal meal breaks, effectively required them to be on call during the breaks without pay, the Fifth Circuit held. The employer argued that the tort claims are each susceptible to a defense based on “the frequency of actual interruptions,” which varies between class members, but their theory did not depend on individualized proof because all class members were subject to the same policies and similar professional obligations. The appeals court declined appellate jurisdiction over orders certifying the employees’ FLSA collective action (Hamm v. Ochsner-Acadia, L.L.C., No. 25-30603 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2026)).

Psychiatric hospital. Acadia, according to the court, operates River Place Behavioral Health, a psychiatric hospital in LaPlace, Louisiana. The named plaintiffs are two former River Place employees. The first worked as a nurse supervisor, and the second worked as a mental health technician, responsible for supervising patients and caring for their basic needs.

2020 lawsuit. The two employees sued Acadia in 2020 and later amended their complaint to add two Acadia-affiliated entities that operate River Place: Ochsner-Acadia and Acadia LaPlace Holdings.

Nominal meal breaks, functionally on-call. The employees alleged that, although Acadia gave them nominal meal breaks, its policies and their professional ethical duties functionally required them to be on call for the breaks.

FLSA and Louisiana tort claims. They argued that the arrangement violated the FLSA, along with Louisiana statutes prohibiting unjust enrichment and conversion. The employees sued on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees, seeking to certify an FLSA collective and a Rule 23 class.

Decisions below and appeal. In four orders, the federal district court below certified both an FLSA collective action and a class action. Acadia appealed under Rule 23(f).

No appellate jurisdiction over collective-certification orders. The Fifth Circuit first declined appellate jurisdiction over the collective-certification orders. Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) affords an appellate court discretion to consider an interlocutory appeal from a district court “order granting or denying class-action certification under” Rule 23, the appeals court noted, the rule’s text “makes plain that the sole order that may be appealed is the class certification; no other issues may be raised.” It thus declined Acadia’s request to invoke pendent jurisdiction to review the orders certifying the FLSA collective.

Class certification. Turning to the class certifications of current and former mental health support staff (e.g., nurses, therapists, and intake coordinators) at River Place, the Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion.

Common questions. Acadia chiefly argued that the district court improperly analyzed predominance because the employees’ state-law torts are each susceptible to a defense based on “the frequency of actual interruptions,” which varied between class members. This, the Fifth Circuit found, “distorts plaintiffs’ theory.”

As the employees’ trial plan explained, both the unjust enrichment and conversion claims depend on a single theory: that “the class as a whole was effectively on call during their unpaid meal breaks given the intersection of [Acadia’s] policies and patient-care employees’ ethical and legal obligations.” This theory, the appeals court affirmed, does not depend on individualized proof because all class members were subject to the same policies and similar professional obligations.

Superior method. Class adjudication was also the superior method to resolve the controversy. Acadia argued that the class would be unmanageable because “the individualized differences in meal break interruptions would result in different levels of damages among the class.” The employees, however, argued that, if their meal periods were effectively on call, “all meal periods are entirely compensable.” Damages calculations would thus be “as simple as looking at Defendants’ time punch and payroll data for the class [to determine] how many unpaid meal periods class members worked in the statute of limitations.” Here, the appeals court agreed that this would be a manageable way to resolve damages.

Typicality and adequacy of class representatives. Finally, the Fifth Circuit rejected Acadia’s challenges based on Rule 23(a)’s typicality and adequacy requirements. Acadia argued that the class representatives never experienced an interrupted meal break, so their claims are not representative. The employees, however, cited the mental health technician’s testimony that she and other employees “never had a lunch break where we really sat down for 30 minutes uninterrupted.”

Again, the appeals court noted, “plaintiffs’ state-law theory does not depend on member-by-member interruption frequency to show class liability. Rather, plaintiffs maintain that breaks were ‘subject to the same possibility of interruption,’” which in turn, allegedly unjustly enriched Acadia with, or converted, their unpaid wages. Under this theory, the named plaintiffs’ claims were typical: both were subject to the same policies and duties that might interrupt their breaks, and the mental health technician’s breaks were, in fact, interrupted.

A supervisor in the class? Nor was the court persuaded that the first named plaintiff was an inadequate representative. Acadia argued that she is inadequate because “she was responsible for ensuring others received uninterrupted breaks.” It alleged that this created “an inherent conflict,” because “it is a strong defense to the class’s claims.” The district court, however, found that “[she] maintains the willingness to participate as an active representative in the litigation and protect the interests of the unnamed class members,” and Acadia offered “no meaningful response beyond speculating that [her] status as a supervisor subjects her claim to unspecified defenses.”

Acadia did not identify any evidence that the nurse supervisor was responsible for the policies and ethical obligations for which the employees alleged the employer is liable. “To the extent [she] has any conflict,” the court concluded, “it is not enough to categorically bar her from representing the class.”

The case is No. 25-30603.

Judge: Graves, J., Jr.

Attorneys: Ori Edelstein (Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim) for Amy Hamm and Joye Wilson. Frederick L. Conrad, III (Holland & Knight) for Ochsner-Acadia, L.L.C. and Acadia LaPlace Holdings, L.L.C.

Companies: Ochsner-Acadia, L.L.C.; Acadia LaPlace Holdings, L.L.C.

Cases: WageHour ClassActions WorkingTime TortClaims StateLawClaims Procedure LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews