context: (R. 187-38, Atlas Deck P 12; R. 187-59, Saviozzi Deck P 12; R. 187-48, James Deck P 15.) Nurses in SJH's emergency department frequently combine their paid rest break with their unpaid meal break. (R. 187-38, Atlas Deck P 11.) This evidence demonstrates that Defendants did not uniformly implement the meal period policy, but rather allowed each department to implement it in a way that addressed the particular needs of the department.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 2011 WL 6372873, *7
citation_a.parenthetical: decertifying automatic meal deduction collective action, finding it relevant that "[s]ome employees would not have a scheduled time for meal breaks and would take them when they could, other employees had regularly scheduled 30-minute breaks, and others had scheduled breaks that could not always be followed"
citation_a.sentence: See White, 2011 WL 1883959, at *1 (decertifying automatic meal deduction collective action where, in implementing the automatic meal deduction policy, each of the defendants’ departments were “free to formulate ... procedure[s] that workfed] best for its employees”); see also Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., No. 09-85J, 2011 WL 6372873, *7 (W.D.Pa. Dee. 20, 2011) (decertifying automatic meal deduction collective action, finding it relevant that “[s]ome employees would not have a scheduled time for meal breaks and would take them when they could, other employees had regularly scheduled 30-minute breaks, and others had scheduled breaks that could not always be followed”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 2011 WL 1883959, at *1
citation_b.parenthetical: decertifying automatic meal deduction collective action where, in implementing the automatic meal deduction policy, each of the defendants' departments were "free to formulate ... procedure[s] that workfed] best for its employees"
citation_b.sentence: See White, 2011 WL 1883959, at *1 (decertifying automatic meal deduction collective action where, in implementing the automatic meal deduction policy, each of the defendants’ departments were “free to formulate ... procedure[s] that workfed] best for its employees”); see also Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., No. 09-85J, 2011 WL 6372873, *7 (W.D.Pa. Dee. 20, 2011) (decertifying automatic meal deduction collective action, finding it relevant that “[s]ome employees would not have a scheduled time for meal breaks and would take them when they could, other employees had regularly scheduled 30-minute breaks, and others had scheduled breaks that could not always be followed”).