context: Courts have held entire meal breaks to be compensable under the FLSA when employees continue to have job responsibilities during their breaks.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 915 F.2d 1473, 1477
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he essential consideration in determining whether a meal period is a bona fide meal period or a compensable rest period is whether the employees are in fact relieved from work for the purpose of eating a regularly scheduled meal."
citation_a.sentence: See Kohlheim v. Glynn County, 915 F.2d 1473, 1477 (11th Cir.1990) (“[T]he essential consideration in determining whether a meal period is a bona fide meal period or a compensable rest period is whether the employees are in fact relieved from work for the purpose of eating a regularly scheduled meal.”); see also Reich v. S. New England Telecomm. Corp., 121 F.3d 58, 64-65 (2d Cir.1997) (holding meal periods compensable “work” under FLSA if employees perform duties predominantly for the benefit of the employer); Henson v. Pulaski County Sheriff Dep’t, 6 F.3d 531, 534-35 (8th Cir.1993) (same).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 121 F.3d 58, 64-65
citation_b.parenthetical: holding meal periods compensable "work" under FLSA if employees perform duties predominantly for the benefit of the employer
citation_b.sentence: See Kohlheim v. Glynn County, 915 F.2d 1473, 1477 (11th Cir.1990) (“[T]he essential consideration in determining whether a meal period is a bona fide meal period or a compensable rest period is whether the employees are in fact relieved from work for the purpose of eating a regularly scheduled meal.”); see also Reich v. S. New England Telecomm. Corp., 121 F.3d 58, 64-65 (2d Cir.1997) (holding meal periods compensable “work” under FLSA if employees perform duties predominantly for the benefit of the employer); Henson v. Pulaski County Sheriff Dep’t, 6 F.3d 531, 534-35 (8th Cir.1993) (same).