Is it legal for a job to not allow employees to take breaks?

IAAL, IANYL, TINLA. I do not do enough labor law to have an informed opinion about whether or not this is legal, although my best guess would be that it is. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, there is no requirement that an employer provide breaks or meals periods to workers. However, your state's labor laws may have have such provisions. You will need to speak with your state's labor department or an employment law lawyer in your state. In my experience, these sorts of questions are highly fact-intensive. Even if there is a claim, I would really urge against ginning up some class action lawsuit. Class actions are great for huge fee awards for the plaintiff's lawyers, but not very much for compensating the class members. Ever received a letter in the mail that you might be a member of a class that just settled a lawsuit and now you may be entitled to a $2 coupon? f I weren't subject to confidentiality agreements, I could tell you war stories about class action settlements that would curl your hair. (I have serious questions about whether or not you would have a certifiable class, but that is beyond the scope of your question) And if I were the defending lawyer, I would love to have this post where you talk about "chilling" on the clock.

You should consult the NJ state labor board if you want a hard and fast understanding of this. Personally, I wouldn't bother though. If you have about 20 hours per week where you're not actively doing something, but just in the home, frankly, that's pretty sweet. I had a similar job when I was in college, where I worked in a group home with kids and sometimes we'd let them play Space Invaders and I'd chill in the kitchen with coffee. I ran my errands on my off days. It's one of those things I think, because of the flexibility of the job, and because so much of the time on the job is not actively interacting with clients, breaks would be considered superfluous. You could make a federal case, but I don't see the point.

It's worth noting that time spent sitting around while on duty isn't a paid break. It's paid, but it's work. A break is "go read a book and we won't ask you to do anything for the next X minutes". The OP has the "go read a book" part, but not the "we won't ask you to do anything" part. If it's my office hour, I'm still doing work even if no one shows up and I spend an hour reading Metafilter. I'm being paid to sit there in case someone shows up, much like the OP is getting paid to assist clients as needed. It's pretty clear to me they aren't getting breaks, so perhaps we should stop lecturing them about how they have breaks, but like rtha pointed out, they seem not to be entitled to them by law.

I am actually a Director for a home of this type, albeit in another state and obviously with a different company. When we hire someone, part of the initial orientation is offering the option to take unpaid meal breaks when available, or to get paid to eat meals with the residents. Without fail everyone I have hired has opted for the paid meals. As far as I know we are not obligated to offer specific breaks, especially as sometimes because of staff shortages there may just be one person working a particular shift and the health/safety of the clients dictates that someone be present at all times, so a guaranteed break could well create a conflict of laws and get us in hot water one way or the other. To be sure, if a employee came to me and said, 'hey I am finding my job just a little stressful is there anyway I can try and build in some break time into my shifts' I would try and accommodate them wherever reasonable, and when there are sufficient staff available (95% of the time tbh). And really? I kind of expect my employees to be self managing enough that if they do need some minor downtime, to actually talk with their fellow employees and arrange it in a responsible reasonable manner. This does not mean ducking out of work for those 15 mins and running a quick errand, (really that is what your non work/personal time is for), but it can mean popping outside for a quick stroll up the block and back, perhaps a sit out back etc. The nature of this job is flexibility, you take your breaks when you can, not at 2pm exactly everyday.

As an emergency department doctor I work 12 hour shifts and have no mandatory breaks for lunch or otherwise. Some shifts I am lucky to get time to go to the bathroom. I eat a protein bar while doing one of my charts and that is lunch. I am certain this is the case for people in my job nationwide, and that it is legal. So... Yeah, it's definitely legal in some cases not to have breaks, and I'm not super sympathetic to your cause, although I realize most people's jobs do have them.

[TwilightKid, this is a forum for asking a question and getting answers not an ongoing discussion place about your topic.]

I'd guess that in a 40 hour work week, at least half that time is down time. It sounds to me like you do get breaks; many hours more of them than most jobs. What beyond "sit around and watch TV or movies, read a magazine, and basically chill" are you expecting "break" to mean?

For heaven's sake, you get half your paid time as 'down' time, so if that doesn't count as "breaks" I don't know what does. And you can't run your personal errands and chores on your workdays? Neither can most of us --- that's what your days off are for. For the answer to "is it or isn't it legal?", check with either your state's Labor Board or an employment lawyer. And like treehorn+bunny, I work anywhere from 8-16 hours a day in a job where there flat-out isn't any such thing as formal, go-somewhere-else-and-chill Break Times (although I'm in entertainment, not lifesaving!), so I too am just a bit unsymphathetic to your having 50% of the day effectively not working but still wanting more.

Rather than a class action suit, your efforts may be more rewarding if you pursue Union certification of the different locations together. As you see, some employers are happy to get every ounce out of you short-term even if it does not pay off for either of you long-term (for you, burnout, for them, having to constantly replace burntout employees). I would caution you to be very discrete and do any research into unionization off-site on your personal time.