Is this legal?
- Thread starter scooterbug44
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Unfortunately, it is legal. When it is typical for employees to eat meals on site, the employer can deduct an amount from the employee's paycheck. (See below.)
Meals and Lodging
Federal law allows employers to deduct the cost of providing food and lodging to employees, even if those deductions bring the employee's total pay to less than the minimum wage. In fast food restaurants, for example, employers often charge employees the cost of a meal to be eaten during their shift, even though employees typically hold minimum-wage jobs.
Employers may deduct meals and lodging only if those items are customarily provided to employees in the industry. And, the employer may deduct only the reasonable cost of the items provided, not what it would charge for the items.
Although most states also allow employers to deduct the cost of meals and lodging provided to employees, there are legal limits. In California, for example, employees must voluntarily agree, in writing, to the deductions. A number of states, including Connecticut and New Hampshire, put a dollar limit on the amount an employer can deduct.
Meals and Lodging
Federal law allows employers to deduct the cost of providing food and lodging to employees, even if those deductions bring the employee's total pay to less than the minimum wage. In fast food restaurants, for example, employers often charge employees the cost of a meal to be eaten during their shift, even though employees typically hold minimum-wage jobs.
Employers may deduct meals and lodging only if those items are customarily provided to employees in the industry. And, the employer may deduct only the reasonable cost of the items provided, not what it would charge for the items.
Although most states also allow employers to deduct the cost of meals and lodging provided to employees, there are legal limits. In California, for example, employees must voluntarily agree, in writing, to the deductions. A number of states, including Connecticut and New Hampshire, put a dollar limit on the amount an employer can deduct.
I was curious about time not being required to eat on site, because it is illegal to not pay if a meal period is taken at a desk, or if someone is required to answer phones, but the FLSA allows an employer to require employees to eat on site. See last paragaraph in bold.
Code of Federal Regulations Pertaining to U.S. Department of Labor
Title 29
Labor
Chapter V
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor
Part 785
Hours Worked
Subpart C
Application of Principles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR 785.19 - Meal.
Section Number: 785.19
Section Name: Meal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime.
Bona
fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These
are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for
the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is
long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long
enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is
required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while
eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his
desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working
while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 F. Supp. 661
(D. Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 F. 2d 981 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied 344
U.S. 888 (1952); Thompson v. Stock & Sons, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 213 (E.D.
Mich 1950), aff'd 194 F. 2d 493 (C.A. 6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy
Corp., 183 F. 2d 515 (C. A. 9, 1950), 187 F. 2d 447 (C.A. 9, 1951);
Walling v. Dunbar Transfer & Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor
Cases para. 61.565 (W.D. Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke
Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D. Okla. 1942);
aff'd 136 F. 2d 359 (C.A. 10, 1943); cert. denied 320 U.S. 772 (1943);
Mitchell v. Tampa Cigar Co., 36 Labor Cases para. 65, 198, 14 W.H. Cases
38 (S.D. Fla. 1959); Douglass v. Hurwitz Co., 145 F. Supp. 29, 13 W.H.
Cases (E.D. Pa. 1956))
(b) Where no permission to leave premises. It is not necessary that
an employee be permitted to leave the premises if he is otherwise
completely freed from duties during the meal period.
Code of Federal Regulations Pertaining to U.S. Department of Labor
Title 29
Labor
Chapter V
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor
Part 531
Wage Payments Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
Subpart C
Interpretations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR 531.30 - ``Furnished'' to the employee.
Section Number: 531.30
Section Name: ``Furnished'' to the employee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasonable cost of board, lodging, or other facilities may be
considered as part of the wage paid an employee only where customarily
``furnished'' to the employee. Not only must the employee receive the
benefits of the facility for which he is charged, but it is essential
that his acceptance of the facility be voluntary and uncoerced. See
Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (E.D.N.C.). 1 W.H. Cases
289.
-------------
(SNERD) Sounds like the meal deduction must be voluntary but from what I could find the courts have interpreted it differently. If the employer is charging more than the cost they could be in trouble if it is mandatory for employees.
----------------
Here is one case:
176 F.3d 912
Reg. 531.30 provides that an employee's acceptance of facilities must be "voluntary and uncoerced." The "voluntary and uncoerced" provision has been rejected in several court of appeal and district court decisions regarding meals provided to employees. WH [Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor] no longer enforces the "voluntary" provision with respect to meals. Therefore, where an employee is required to accept a meal provided by the employer as a condition of employment, WH will take no enforcement action, provided that the employer takes credit for no more than the actual cost incurred.
--------------
And another...
700 F.2d 1368
Section 3(m) of the statute provides that wages include the reasonable cost of meals "customarily furnished" to employees. Through its interpretative regulation, the Secretary of Labor has in effect construed "customarily furnished" by the employer to mean "voluntarily accepted" by the employees. We fail to discern any basis for this construction. Congress is presumed to use words in their ordinary sense unless it expressly indicates the contrary.
Title 29
Labor
Chapter V
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor
Part 531
Wage Payments Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
Subpart C
Interpretations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR 531.30 - ``Furnished'' to the employee.
Section Number: 531.30
Section Name: ``Furnished'' to the employee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasonable cost of board, lodging, or other facilities may be
considered as part of the wage paid an employee only where customarily
``furnished'' to the employee. Not only must the employee receive the
benefits of the facility for which he is charged, but it is essential
that his acceptance of the facility be voluntary and uncoerced. See
Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (E.D.N.C.). 1 W.H. Cases
289.
-------------
(SNERD) Sounds like the meal deduction must be voluntary but from what I could find the courts have interpreted it differently. If the employer is charging more than the cost they could be in trouble if it is mandatory for employees.
----------------
Here is one case:
176 F.3d 912
Reg. 531.30 provides that an employee's acceptance of facilities must be "voluntary and uncoerced." The "voluntary and uncoerced" provision has been rejected in several court of appeal and district court decisions regarding meals provided to employees. WH [Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor] no longer enforces the "voluntary" provision with respect to meals. Therefore, where an employee is required to accept a meal provided by the employer as a condition of employment, WH will take no enforcement action, provided that the employer takes credit for no more than the actual cost incurred.
--------------
And another...
700 F.2d 1368
Section 3(m) of the statute provides that wages include the reasonable cost of meals "customarily furnished" to employees. Through its interpretative regulation, the Secretary of Labor has in effect construed "customarily furnished" by the employer to mean "voluntarily accepted" by the employees. We fail to discern any basis for this construction. Congress is presumed to use words in their ordinary sense unless it expressly indicates the contrary.