DOL Clarifies When Meal Breaks Remain Unpaid Under the FLSA

July 1st, 2026

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) recently issued an opinion letter providing an important clarification on unpaid meal break compliance under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The guidance addresses whether time spent walking to parking areas or navigating security during a meal period renders that time compensable.  

In its opinion letter, the WHD concluded that a 30-minute meal period remains a bona fide, non-compensable break even where employees voluntarily spend part of that time leaving the worksite. The key factor is whether employees are fully relieved of duties and free to use the time for their own purposes.  

The DOL further emphasized that employers are not required to extend meal periods or compensate employees for voluntary off-site travel time, even if those choices reduce the time available to eat.  

What Does It Mean? 

This opinion letter reinforces several core FLSA principles while providing practical clarity for employers; particularly those operating large or secured worksites: 

  • “Relieved of duty” remains the controlling standard. For those subject to the FLSA, meal periods are non-compensable so long as employees are completely free from work duties. 
  • Off-site travel during breaks does not convert time to paid work. Walking to parking or passing through security (when voluntary) does not automatically make the time compensable.  
  • Operational limitations are permissible. Employers may impose reasonable restrictions, including requiring employees to remain onsite, without triggering compensability, provided employees are not working.  
  • Facts still matter. If employees perform any duties during the break, even intermittently, the entire period may become compensable.  

It is important for California employers to note that state law imposes stricter meal period requirements than federal law, including timing, duty-free obligations, and premium pay for noncompliant breaks. Compliance with the FLSA alone does not ensure compliance under California law, and employers must evaluate meal period practices under both standards. 

To align with the DOL’s guidance and reduce risk: 

  1. Review meal period policies. Confirm policies clearly require duty-free meal periods and communicate that employees may use the time for their own purposes. 
  2. Audit actual practices. Ensure employees are not performing work (e.g., monitoring equipment or responding to communications) during meal breaks. 
  3. Assess restrictions and logistics. Confirm that any access limitations (e.g., large facilities, security protocols) do not interfere with employees’ ability to take a meaningful meal period. 
  4. Train supervisors. Reinforce that allowing or expecting work during meal periods can convert the entire break into compensable time. 
  5. Evaluate state law overlay. Remember that for California employers, meal breaks are mandatory for employees working more than five hours. This means that the first meal break must begin before the end of the fifth hour, and a second meal break is required for shifts over ten hours. 

This latest opinion letter underscores that meal periods under the FLSA remain unpaid when employees are truly relieved of duty, even if workplace logistics make off-site breaks less convenient. Employers subject to the FLSA should focus on ensuring breaks are genuinely duty-free while accounting for stricter state law requirements where applicable. 

Best Practices: AI in the Workplace: What Employers Should Be Doing Now

July 1st, 2026

Artificial intelligence (AI) is quickly moving from a “nice-to-have” tool to a core part of day-to-day operations. Employers are increasingly using AI for recruiting, performance management, workforce analytics, and employee communications. 

At the same time, regulators and courts are paying close attention. New laws, enforcement activity, and litigation trends signal that AI in employment is no longer unregulated territory, and employers who adopt these tools without guardrails face growing legal risk.  

From bias concerns in hiring to data privacy and transparency requirements, the challenge for employers is no longer whether to use AI, but how to use it responsibly and compliantly. 

AI tools can create efficiencies, but they also introduce new compliance challenges. A few key risk areas to be aware of include: 

  • Discrimination risk – AI systems can replicate or amplify historic biases in hiring, promotion, or discipline decisions, potentially violating federal and state anti-discrimination laws.  
  • Regulatory patchwork – States and localities are implementing different rules governing AI, including requirements for bias audits, transparency, and risk assessments.  
  • Employer liability remains – As always, employers remain responsible for outcomes generated by AI tools provided by third-party vendors. 
  • Data privacy and confidentiality risks – Improper use of AI tools can expose sensitive employee or business information.  

 

To reduce risk while still capturing the benefits of AI, employers should consider the following best practices:

  1. Conduct AI Risk Assessments-Evaluate any AI tools used in hiring, discipline, or workforce decisions to identify potential bias, data risks, and compliance gaps.  
  2. Maintain Human Oversight – Use AI as a decision-support tool, not as a standalone decision-maker. Ensure managers review and validate AI-driven recommendations before acting.  
  3.  Promote Transparency-Inform applicants and employees when AI is used in employment decisions and explain, at a high level, how it impacts outcomes.  
  4. Audit for Bias and Disparate Impact-Regularly test AI tools to ensure they are not disproportionately affecting protected groups or creating unintended discrimination risks.  
  5. Implement an AI Workplace Policy-Adopt a clear policy addressing: 
  • Approved AI tools 
  • Permissible uses 
  • Data privacy and confidentiality expectations 
  • Required review and approval processes 

Failing to establish guardrails is one of the most common and preventable AI-related risks.

      6  Provide Training to All Employees – Ensure those using AI tools understand both the benefits and the legal risks, including when human intervention is required. 

A Note for California Employers 

California continues to lead in workplace regulation and is actively evaluating rules governing automated decision systems and AI in employment. Employers operating in California should assume a stricter, more employee-protective standard and monitor ongoing developments closely. 

AI can deliver real efficiencies—but without proper oversight, it can also create significant legal exposure. Employers that take a proactive, structured approach to AI governance will be best positioned to leverage its benefits while minimizing risk.