In Ruffin v MotorCity Casino the Sixth Circuit determined that the casino security guards' mealtime was not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, despite that the guards were required to remain on the casino's premises during meal times, monitor two-way radios, and respond to emergency calls. 2015 WL 72840 (6th Cir January 7, 2015). The Court affirmed the district court's prior decision awarding summary judgment to the casino, concluding "no reasonable jury could find that the meal periods predominantly benefited the casino."

In Ruffin the Court specifically reviewed three factors (under a "totality of the circumstances" review) to determine whether the mealtime was predominantly for the employer's benefit and therefore compensable under FLSA: whether the employees "engaged in the performance of any substantial duties" during the mealtime; whether the employer's business regularly interrupted the employees' meal period; and, the employees' inability to leave the employer's property during mealtime (or, as later rephrased by the Sixth Circuit, "whether the employer require[d] an employee to take meals on the premises as an indirect or round-about way of extracting unpaid work from the employee"). The Court ultimately determined that none of these factors weighed in favor of the employees and, based on a totality of the circumstances, concluded that the meal periods did not "predominantly" benefit the casino.

Notably, in Ruffin, guards who lost time during a meal period for responding to a call were entitled to have that time made up. And, the facts in Ruffin did not show that the employees' meal times were regularly interrupted or even often interrupted by emergency calls.