DOL Confirms Time Walking to and from Break Area Might Be Part of Bona Fide Noncompensable Meal Period

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) concluded in Opinion Letter FLSA2026-11 that an uncompensated 60-minute unpaid meal period remains a bona fide, noncompensable meal period under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) even when employees must spend a portion of that meal period walking to and from a designated break area. 

The opinion arose from a detention facility employee’s challenge to a policy requiring certain employees to travel to a separate location to eat because food was prohibited in their work areas. Although the required travel (3 to 7 minutes each way) reduced the time available in the break area to approximately 46 to 54 minutes, the WHD determined that employees remained relieved of duty and retained ample uninterrupted time to eat a meal and engage in personal activities. As a result, the entire 60-minute meal period qualified as a bona fide meal period and did not constitute compensable work time under the FLSA. 

For employers, the opinion is significant because it rejects the argument that required travel during a meal period automatically renders the travel time compensable. Instead, the WHD emphasized that the central inquiry is whether employees are relieved from work duties and have sufficient time to use the break for its intended purpose. The agency reaffirmed that the FLSA generally does not require employers to provide meal periods at all, and that the Department of Labor and most courts analyze meal-break claims under the “predominant benefit” test rather than a strict “complete relief from duty” standard. Under this approach, minor restrictions or conditions placed on employees during a meal period do not necessarily make the time compensable if the employee remains free to use the break primarily for their own benefit and has sufficient time to eat a regular meal. 

The opinion also provides employers with a favorable interpretation of Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., a Fifth Circuit decision frequently cited in meal-break litigation. The WHD explained that the concern in Naylor was not the existence of employer-required travel itself, but rather that the travel consumed a significant portion of the 30-minute meal period, leaving employees with as little as 18 minutes to eat. By contrast, employees in the opinion letter retained at least 46 minutes for meals and personal activities after accounting for travel time. According to the WHD, the length of the travel time is not independently determinative; what matters is whether employees still receive a meaningful meal period once travel time is considered.

This reasoning provides employers with additional support against claims that time spent walking to cafeterias, break rooms, security checkpoints, or designated eating locations automatically transforms a meal period into compensable work time. But it left the question of where to draw the line unanswered. 

The WHD did not draw a clear line between when travel time might have such a substantial impact on the time available to eat a meal that the entire time needs to be treated as compensable work time (as in Naylor), and when the employee retains sufficient time to eat a meal notwithstanding the travel time (as in the Opinion Letter). For example, what if an employer provides a 30-minute meal period but 2 minutes of travel time each way leaves only 26 minutes to eat a meal? Scenarios like this were not scrutinized in the Opinion Letter since the employees at issue received more than 30 minutes, even after subtracting the travel time.

While repeating its longstanding position that typically, 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period, the WHD noted that this is not a rigid, formal requirement, and it did not foreclose the possibility that net meal period time below 30 minutes could be considered a bona fide meal period. Instead, the WHD will consider the totality of the circumstances, including: (a) whether employees have sufficient time to eat a regular meal, taking into consideration the impact of travel time; and (b) whether there is an agreement between employer and employee for a meal period of less than 30 minutes. 

Finally, the Opinion Letter highlights an important distinction between FLSA compliance and contractual obligations under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The WHD expressly limited its analysis to federal wage-and-hour requirements and declined to address whether the employer’s practice complied with the CBA’s promise of a 60-minute meal period. The agency noted that although collective bargaining agreements generally cannot waive FLSA protections, disputes regarding whether an employer has contractually promised more generous meal-break rights must be resolved under applicable labor law and the terms of the agreement. 

For employers, the key takeaway is that meal-break policies requiring employees to travel to designated eating areas may withstand FLSA scrutiny when employees are fully relieved of duty and retain sufficient uninterrupted time for meals, even if separate contractual or state-law considerations may still exist.