Meal Period Compliance: Insights from Washington Court Ruling

An appellate court in Washington state recently held a hospital liable for paying employees who worked through meal periods for their time worked, plus compensation for an additional break as a penalty, highlighting Washington employers’ obligations to ensure employees take breaks from work during their meal and rest periods.

On Sept. 30, a panel for the Court of Appeals for the State of Washington affirmed a lower-court summary judgment ruling that sided with employees, finding that they were owed additional compensation in the amount of thirty minutes of pay for each missed meal period to compensate them for the deprivation of their right to take a break from work during the meal periods, plus prejudgment interest.

In Androckitis v. Virginia Mason Medical Center, the appellate court rejected the hospital’s argument that the employees need only be compensated for the time of their meal periods and that additional pay for the missed periods was an improper, judicially created penalty.

But the court stated that it is well-established law that the Washington Industrial Welfare Act (IWA) provides employees “a right to the respite of a meal and rest period, an implied cause of action to enforce that right, and a remedy to compensate them for the loss of the statutorily granted opportunity to have respite from work.”

The decision is significant for employers because it underscores that Washington courts will take employers’ statutory obligations to provide meal and rest periods seriously and will not treat failure to provide such periods as mere technical violations of labor law.

Background

The case involved a class action of Virginia Mason Medical Center employees who alleged that the hospital violated the IWA—which empowers the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries to protect employees from unhealthy labor conditions—and the Washington State Minimum Wage Act (WMWA).

The employees alleged that even though the hospital had mechanisms for employees to report when they worked through meal periods and receive pay for that time worked, employees were not adequately compensated for the loss of their right to take a meal period.

The trial court granted the employees’ summary judgment, ruling that Virginia Mason Medical Center owes them an additional 30 minutes of compensation for each missed meal period and that the hospital’s failure to properly compensate employees from the outset was willful, entitling them to “double damages.” The parties had agreed to a damages award of more than $3.3 million to forgo a trial on damages.

Right to a Meal Period and Penalty Pay

Virginia Mason Medical Center had argued that it should not be required to make additional or penalty payments to employees who work through meal periods beyond paying them for the time they worked. The hospital pointed out that the WMWA only requires that employees be paid for the hours worked.

However, the court of appeals rejected that argument, stating it is “predicated on the erroneous notion that the right to the respite of a meal period has no value.” The court explained that the IWA is not duplicative of the WMWA and addresses working conditions beyond the minimum wage.

The court of appeals stated: “Indeed, if an employer could have a policy of providing an employee with an unpaid meal period, require an employee to work during that unpaid meal period, pay that employee for their hours worked, and not provide that employee with another meal period, then, on balance, the employer would receive 30 minutes of additional labor from the employee and the employee would not have received 30 minutes of respite from work—frustrating the legislature’s clear directive in the welfare act to protect workers against unhealthy conditions of labor. We cannot adopt a proposed interpretation that would thwart the purpose of such remedial employee protection measures.”

The court of appeals further found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that pay for an additional 30 minutes of work was a remedy as it “reflects that the trial court measured the remedy according to the value attributed by Virginia Mason to the wages for that amount of work by the plaintiffs.”

Finally, Virginia Mason Medical Center had argued that summary judgment for the employees was improper because there were factual questions over whether employees had waived their right to take meal periods. However, the court of appeals ruled that the hospital failed to meet its burden to avoid summary judgment because “[i]t did not present the trial court with specific instances in which its employees had indicated that they had waived their right to a meal period.”

Key Takeaways

The court of appeals’ decision clarifies that employer obligations to provide breaks from work for meal and rest periods are serious, as the court emphasized that these are not merely technical requirements. The decision suggests that there are few, if any, justifications otherwise. The ruling comes after a Washington state trial court held another hospital liable for nearly $100 million in damages for time clock rounding and meal period violations.

The ruling further indicates that simply paying employees for the time they work is insufficient if meal periods are missed or compromised. According to the court, it was reasonable to assess additional damages equal to the pay for a meal period as a penalty for each missed meal period. In light of this ruling, employers in Washington state may need to promptly compensate employees to avoid the assessment of prejudgment interest payments and double damages for meal and rest period violations unless the error is genuinely isolated or inadvertent.

Finally, the decision shows that employers have the burden of proof to avoid summary judgment and considerable double damages. The ruling suggests that employers must show that employees, in every case, waived every single meal period not taken or that each missed meal period was truly an inadvertent or isolated mistake.

Employers in Washington state may want to review their policies to ensure that employees take breaks from work during required meal and rest periods.

Adam T. Pankratz and Laurence A. Shapero are attorneys with Ogletree Deakins in Seattle. Zachary V. Zagger is senior marketing counsel with Ogletree Deakins in New York City. © 2024 Ogletree Deakins. All rights reserved. Reposted with permission.