Back to Federal guidance

Unauthorized extension of a paid break

Summary An employer asked whether an employee’s unauthorized extension of an allowed break caused the entire break to become unpaid. WHD said only the unauthorized extra time would be excluded from hours worked when the Field Operations Handbook’s three conditions were met. The authorized break itself remained compensable.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
Document number
FLSA2001-16
Date issued
May 19, 2001
Status
Active
Status last verified October 8, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (WHD). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Washington, D.C. 20210

May 19, 2001 FLSA2001-16

Dear Name*,

This is in reply to your request for an opinion regarding revision 643 of the Field Operations Handbook issued December 15, 2000.

You are requesting an opinion as to whether the unauthorized extension of an authorized break by an employee who has been previously advised of the three conditions of 31a01(c) results in the loss of the entire period of the break from compensable time rather than just the amount of time by which the break has been extended without authorization.

Only the length of the unauthorized extension of an authorized break will not be considered hours worked when the three conditions are met, not the entire break.

This opinion is based exclusively on the facts and circumstances described in your request and is given on the basis of your representation, explicit or implied, that, you have provided a full and fair description of all the facts and circumstances which would be pertinent to our consideration of the question presented. Existence of any other factual or historical background not contained in your request might require a different conclusion than the one expressed herein.

Sincerely,

Thomas M. Markey Acting Administrator

Note: * The actual name(s) was removed to preserve privacy.

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace