September 19, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
September 19, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the Eastern District of Missouri denied a motion for reconsideration brought by Levering Regional Health Care Center, LLC and Reliant Care Management Company, LLC. The Department of Labor alleged the facilities violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by automatically deducting 30-minute meal breaks even when employees allegedly worked through their breaks. After the district court originally granted summary judgment to the defendants, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. Defendants asked the district court to reinstate part of the prior judgment for a later time period, arguing the reversal applied only to an earlier “Audit Period.” The court rejected that argument, holding that the appellate reversal applied to the entire case and that reconsideration was not warranted under Rule 60(b).
Relevant Background
According to the allegations in the Department of Labor’s complaint, Levering and Reliant Care maintained an automatic meal-break deduction system but allegedly knew or should have known that employees regularly worked through their unpaid breaks. The Department of Labor sought unpaid overtime dating back to 2018 and injunctive relief under the FLSA.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that their written policy permitted employees to report missed meal breaks and that there was no evidence of unpaid overtime. The district court originally agreed and granted summary judgment on all claims. The Department of Labor appealed, and in March 2025, the Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the defendants “knew or should have known” employees were working through lunches without compensation.
On remand, the district court vacated its prior judgment and denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motions as to all issues. The defendants then sought reconsideration, arguing that the Eighth Circuit’s reversal applied only to an earlier two-year “Audit Period” and that the defendants remained entitled to summary judgment for the later “Post-Audit Period.” They asserted the audit data did not apply to post-2020 practices and argued the court should reinstate summary judgment in part.
Decision
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. The court found that the defendants did not identify which subsection of Rule 60(b) they were invoking and that this alone was sufficient reason to deny the motion. The court further held that the reconsideration request lacked merit.
Judge Autrey determined that the Eighth Circuit reversed the prior summary judgment in full. The defendants had previously moved for judgment on all claims; the district court originally granted judgment on all claims; the plaintiff appealed the ruling in its entirety; and the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment entirely. The court noted that the appellate opinion did not limit its reasoning to a specific time period. Although the Eighth Circuit discussed evidence from the Audit Period—such as the absence of Temporary Time Sheets during those years—the appellate court did not instruct the district court to carve out any portion of the judgment.
The district court explained that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the merits or attempt to narrow an appellate mandate. The court emphasized that Rule 60(b) requires an exceptional circumstance that justifies relief. The defendants’ argument—that the reversal should apply only to some years—did not meet that standard. The court stated that the case would proceed to trial on whether the defendants knew or should have known that employees worked through unpaid meal breaks and whether overtime compensation was owed. Any admissible evidence regarding later time periods may be presented to the jury.
Looking Forward
This decision may illustrate how courts treat reconsideration motions following appellate reversals, particularly in wage-and-hour litigation involving multiple time periods or operational phases. When defendants move for summary judgment on all claims and the appellate court reverses the judgment in full, courts may be unlikely to reinstate portions of the prior ruling unless the appellate mandate expressly limits the reversal. Employers may wish to consider how appellate findings—especially those involving “knew or should have known” standards—can broaden the factual issues that must be resolved at trial.
The ruling also underscores the scrutiny courts may apply to automatic meal-break deduction systems. Even when an employer maintains a written policy for reporting missed breaks, courts may examine how those policies functioned in practice and whether employees or supervisors understood or used the reporting process. Depending on the facts, written policies alone may not resolve disputes about compensable time, particularly if record evidence is inconsistent across different time periods.
For employers with multi-entity structures, this case highlights the challenge of attempting to segment liability by period or entity once an appellate court reverses summary judgment. Courts may require a full trial record before determining whether practices differed meaningfully over time. As always, the outcome in any similar matter will depend on the specific evidence presented and the governing legal standards applicable in that jurisdiction.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
