New DOL Opinion Letters Offer Wage-and-Hour Reminders for Massachusetts and Connecticut Employers
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued four opinion letters addressing recurring wage-and-hour questions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, including unpaid meal periods, pre-shift work, time-clock rounding, bonus calculations, and exempt employees who perform limited non-exempt work. For Massachusetts and Connecticut employers, the letters are useful—but they are not the end of the analysis.
The key practical point is familiar: federal guidance may provide helpful guardrails, but employers in Massachusetts and Connecticut must still account for state wage laws, state agency enforcement positions, and the realities of their own timekeeping practices.
Meal Breaks: The Federal Rule Is Helpful, But State Law Still Matters
One opinion letter addressed whether an employee’s voluntary off-site travel during an unpaid meal period must be paid where the employee works at a large, secured facility and the process of leaving and returning to the worksite consumes much of the break. The WHD concluded that the travel time was not compensable under the FLSA so long as the employer provided a bona fide meal period—meaning the employee was relieved of duties and given sufficient time to eat.
That is a helpful federal answer, but Massachusetts employers should be especially careful. Massachusetts generally requires a 30-minute meal break for employees working more than six hours, and employees must be free of all duties and free to leave the workplace during that period. If an employee agrees, at the employer’s request, to work or remain at the workplace during the meal break and is not completely relieved of all duties (e.g., eating lunch while answering the phones – or waiting for a delivery person), that time must be paid.
Connecticut employers should also confirm that their meal-period practices comply with state requirements, including any industry-specific or scheduling-related rules. The bottom line: do not assume that a federal opinion letter automatically blesses a meal-period practice under state law.
Pre-Shift Work: If It Is Integral to the Job, Pay for It
Another opinion letter focused on non-exempt hospital employees who were permitted to clock in up to seven minutes early and then, in some cases, began performing work before the scheduled start of their shifts. The WHD concluded that certain pre-shift activities—such as receiving patient handoff reports or locating work assignments—may be compensable where they are integral and indispensable to employees’ principal duties.
This is an important reminder for Massachusetts and Connecticut employers across industries, not just healthcare. If employees routinely perform meaningful work before their scheduled start time, the safer assumption is that the time should be captured and paid. That is particularly true where the employer’s timekeeping system can already identify the time at issue.
· Review what employees actually do after clocking in and before their scheduled start time.
· Train supervisors not to encourage or tolerate off-the-clock pre-shift work.
· Make sure timekeeping systems capture compensable work time, not just scheduled shift time.
Rounding and De Minimis Time: Use Caution
The WHD also addressed time-clock rounding and the de minimis doctrine. The agency emphasized that rounding must be neutral both on its face and in practice. If a policy consistently rounds away compensable time—particularly where employees are performing work after clocking in early—it may create wage-and-hour risk. Best practice is to always round in the employee’s favor.
The WHD also signaled skepticism toward relying on the de minimis doctrine for recurring off-the-clock work, especially in an era where electronic systems often can track small increments of time with precision. For employers in Massachusetts and Connecticut, that caution is well placed. State wage claims can carry significant exposure, and recurring small amounts of unpaid time can add up quickly across a workforce.
Bonus Plans: Confirm Whether Overtime Has Truly Been Built In
In another letter, the WHD addressed a quarterly bonus calculated as a percentage of total earnings, where the formula included both straight-time and overtime earnings. The agency concluded that the bonus qualified as a “percentage of total earnings” bonus, meaning the employer did not need to separately recalculate the regular rate and pay additional overtime on the bonus.
That conclusion depends heavily on the structure of the plan. Employers should not treat all production, attendance, sales, or quarterly bonuses as automatically satisfying overtime requirements. The plan documents, payroll calculations, included earnings, excluded payments, and consistency of administration all matter.
Dual-Role Employees: Exempt Status Can Survive, But Monitor the Primary Duty
The WHD also confirmed that an employee may remain exempt while occasionally performing separate non-exempt work, provided the employee continues to satisfy the applicable exemption requirements and the employee’s primary duty remains exempt work. The letter arose in a healthcare context, where an exempt nursing specialist occasionally picked up hourly staff-nurse shifts.
For employers using dual-role arrangements, the practical lesson is to document the arrangement carefully. Make clear which role is primary, how the employee is paid for additional work, and whether the exempt role continues to satisfy the applicable duties and salary-basis requirements.
What Massachusetts and Connecticut Employers Should Do Now
These opinion letters are useful compliance tools, but they are fact-specific and federal in scope. Employers should use them as a prompt to review practices before a payroll issue becomes a class, collective, or state-law wage claim.
· Audit meal-period practices. Confirm that unpaid meal periods are duty-free and comply with state law, especially in Massachusetts where employees generally must be free of duties and free to leave.
· Observe pre-shift and post-shift activity. Do not rely solely on written policies; determine what employees actually do before and after scheduled shifts.
· Test rounding rules. Evaluate whether rounding is neutral in practice and whether it systematically underpays employees who perform compensable work.
· Limit reliance on de minimis arguments. If time can be tracked, it usually should be tracked.
· Review bonus formulas. Confirm whether overtime has been properly accounted for and whether the plan is administered consistently.
· Monitor dual-role arrangements. Revisit exempt classifications when employees regularly perform non-exempt work.
Bottom Line
The new WHD opinion letters give employers welcome guidance on common FLSA questions, but they also reinforce a more basic compliance theme: pay practices should match what is happening on the ground. Massachusetts and Connecticut employers should take this opportunity to review meal breaks, pre-shift work, rounding, bonus plans, and dual-role arrangements with both federal and state law in mind.
For more information, or if you need assistance with an employee matter, contact Tanzi at T.cannon@GCbyCannon.com.
This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between General Counsel by Cannon and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material.
This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.