Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—WORKING TIME—E.D. Mo.: Healthcare facility will have to face claims employees worked through meal breaks, (Aug 26, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Pay for 30-minute meal breaks was automatically deducted from nursing department employees’ checks when the employer knew or should have known they were working through breaks.

On remand from the Eighth Circuit, a federal district court in Missouri denied motions for summary judgment brought by a healthcare facility and its management services company against claims brought by the Department of Labor alleging violations of the FLSA. The defendants had a policy of automatically deducting 30 minutes for meal breaks from nursing department employees’ pay, despite the fact that most employees worked through their breaks. Initially, the court had granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and did not reach the healthcare facility’s argument that the alleged violations were not willful, nor did it address the management services company’s argument that it was not a joint employer for FLSA purposes. Here, the court considered those arguments and denied the renewed motions (Chavez-Deremer v. Levering Regional Health Care Center, L.L.C., No. 4:21-CV-182 HEA (E.D. Mo. Aug. 25, 2025)).

Levering operates Levering Regional Health Center (Levering Center), a residential care facility, and Reliant Care provides management services to Levering, including payroll and HR services.

Lawsuit. In the complaint, the Department of Labor (DOL) alleged that the defendants violated the FLSA because they automatically deducted 30 minutes for meal breaks from nursing department employees’ pay when they knew or should have known that the employees regularly worked through their meal breaks.

Following discovery, the defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment. They argued they were entitled to summary judgment because there was no evidence they had violated the FLSA, pointing to the fact that employees could request pay for the time they worked via submission of a temporary time sheet.

In the alternative, the defendants argued that even if DOL could establish an FLSA violation, the two-year statute of limitations applied because it could not show that the violation was willful. In addition to the joint motion, Reliant Care filed a separate motion for summary judgment arguing that DOL could not establish that it was a joint employer and could not be held liable for FLSA purposes.

The district court granted the joint motion, finding a lawful policy was in place whereby employees could report and be paid for missing breaks, and thus the defendants had not violated the FLSA. Finding the alternative arguments moot, the court declined to address the defendants’ motion that the two-year statute of limitations applied in this case, nor did it address Reliant Care’s separate motion for summary judgment.

Eighth Circuit. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment. The court found that employees frequently missed meal breaks or had their breaks interrupted. Although it acknowledged that the defendants had established a policy for reporting time worked during meal breaks, there was evidence that those procedures were not used, including the failure of the defendants to produce a single temporary time sheet requesting meal break pay over a two-year period. The court remanded for further proceedings.

Alternative arguments. Following remand, the defendants requested a hearing before this court to address their alternative arguments in support of their joint motion for summary judgment as well as Reliant Care’s separate motion for summary judgment. The court considered each argument in turn.

Willfulness. First, the court considered the defendants’ argument that any violation of the FLSA was not willful. The court was not persuaded, noting that the Eighth Circuit found there was not only evidence that they should have known they were not paying employees for time spent working, there was evidence that they did know employees were not being paid for time spent working.

Specifically, there was evidence in the record that employees frequently worked through meal breaks and supervisors were aware of this fact. In addition, the defendants failed to produce a single temporary time sheet by which an employee requested to be paid for a missed meal break. Further, there was evidence in the record that the defendants did not inform some employees, including supervisors, that there was a policy to request pay for missed meal breaks.

Upon review of this record, the court found there was evidence from which a finder-of-fact could conclude that the defendants knew or showed reckless disregard for the fact that they were not paying employees for work performed during meal breaks. Accordingly, the defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment as to the applicable statute of limitations was denied.

Joint employer. Turning to Reliant Care’s separate motion for summary judgment wherein it argued it was not a joint employer for purposes of the FLSA, the court noted that the only employee at Levering Center over whom Reliant Care had hiring authority was the administrator.

Reliant Care helped to recruit employees by placing links to job openings on its website, but hiring and firing authority rested with the administrator and a handful of others. However, Reliant Care did write the disciplinary policy that applied to employees at Levering Center.

Supervision, control. As to the question of supervision and control, the court agreed with Reliant Care that there was little to no evidence that it supervised employees on a day-to-day basis. However, there was evidence that Reliant Care exercised some control over employees’ schedules and the conditions of their employment, including monitoring the number of hours employees were scheduled to work at Levering Center. Further, a facility nurse advisor, who was a member of Reliant Care’s management team, was embedded at Levering Center, providing training and assistance when there were staffing shortages.

Reliant Care also set and developed policies that impacted the conditions of employment. Most significantly, it was undisputed that it had created the meal break policy that was at issue in this case. It also provided management at Levering Center with training on the meal break policy and was involved with enforcement of the policy.

Rate, method of payment. With regard to the rate and method of payment, there was evidence that Reliant Care set salaries and determined benefits for employees at Levering Center. In addition, Reliant Care was involved in the decision to increase wages during the COVID-19 pandemic and was also involved in the payment of bonuses. It also developed and enrolled employees in benefit plans.

Employment records. Finally, there was evidence that Reliant Care maintained at least some employment records for workers at Levering Center. Its financial services division processed Levering’s payroll, and there was evidence Reliant Care maintained payroll records.

Based on the record, the court found there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Reliant Care was a joint employer of nursing department employees at Levering Center. As such, its separate motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 4:21-CV-182 HEA.

Judge: Autrey, H.

Attorneys: Megan Joann McGinnis, U.S. Department of Labor for Lori Chavez-Deremer. Andrew J. Martone (Martone Legal) for Levering Regional Health Care Center, L.L.C. and Reliant Care Management Co., L.L.C.

Companies: Levering Regional Health Care Center, L.L.C.; Reliant Care Management Co., L.L.C.

Cases: WageHour WorkingTime CoverageLiability Covid19 MissouriNews