Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Levering Regional Health Care Center, L.L.C. and Reliant Care Management Company, L.L.C. · Federal enforcement action (FLSA)
Nursing Home Giant Accused of Stealing Wages from Frontline Workers
Levering Regional Health Care Center automatically deducted lunch breaks from employee paychecks even though workers were forced to stay on duty, denying them overtime wages they legally earned.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
The U.S. Department of Labor sued Levering Regional Health Care Center for systematically underpaying nursing staff by automatically deducting 30 minutes per shift for meal breaks that employees never actually received. Workers testified they were often the only caregiver on the floor and could not leave patients unattended, yet the company still docked their pay. A federal appeals court found enough evidence of potential wage theft to send the case to trial, noting that zero reimbursement requests were filed during a two-year audit period, but 883 pages of such forms appeared in just four months afterward.
This case exposes how profit-driven healthcare corporations can exploit frontline workers through automated payroll systems and inadequate oversight.
30 min
Daily pay deduction per employee for breaks never taken
0
Temporary Time Sheets submitted during 2-year audit period
883
Pages of Time Sheets produced for 4-month period after audit
40+
Employees interviewed by Department of Labor investigators
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
| 01 | Levering automatically deducted 30 minutes from every nursing department employee’s timesheet for a lunch break, every single day, regardless of whether the employee actually took that break. | high |
| 02 | Many employees told Department of Labor investigators they either never received a lunch break or frequently had their breaks interrupted because they were the only staff member on the floor responsible for patient care. | high |
| 03 | More than a dozen employees stated it was impossible for them to take lunch breaks because no one was available to relieve them from their direct care duties with residents. | high |
| 04 | The company maintained an unwritten policy requiring employees to submit a Temporary Time Sheet signed by their supervisor to reclaim pay for missed breaks, but not a single such form was produced for the entire two-year period under investigation. | high |
| 05 | Five employees, including one supervisor who oversaw all nursing staff on the floor, told investigators they had no knowledge that the Temporary Time Sheet policy even existed. | high |
| 06 | After the audit period ended, Levering produced 883 pages of Temporary Time Sheets covering just four months, suggesting the company either failed to communicate the policy during the violation period or discouraged its use. | high |
| 07 | Workers who missed breaks but were still docked pay effectively performed uncompensated labor, which the Department of Labor classified as wage theft under the Fair Labor Standards Act. | high |
| 08 | Because employees regularly exceeded 40 hours per week, the automatic deductions likely caused them to lose overtime pay at time-and-a-half rates, compounding the financial harm. | high |
Regulatory Failures
How oversight broke down · 6 points
| 01 | The district court initially sided with Levering, accepting the company’s argument that its written policy absolved it of responsibility, even though employees testified the policy was either unknown or inaccessible. | medium |
| 02 | The Eighth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that a reasonable jury could find Levering should have known employees were working through breaks, especially given the complete absence of reimbursement requests during the audit period. | medium |
| 03 | The case demonstrates how automatic payroll deduction systems create enforcement challenges, placing the burden on overworked employees to prove they did not receive breaks rather than requiring employers to verify breaks were actually taken. | medium |
| 04 | Department of Labor investigators had to interview more than 40 employees and conduct a months-long investigation from March 2020 through January 2021 to uncover evidence of systematic wage violations. | medium |
| 05 | The appeals court emphasized that constructive knowledge, meaning what an employer should have known through reasonable diligence, is sufficient to establish liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act. | medium |
| 06 | The court found that employers cannot avoid overtime liability simply by prohibiting the work or establishing a reporting policy if they knew or should have known employees were actually performing the work. | medium |
Profit Over People
The business model behind the abuse · 6 points
| 01 | By systematically deducting 30 minutes per day from each nursing department employee’s pay, Levering reduced its labor costs while employees continued to work full shifts caring for vulnerable residents. | high |
| 02 | The company’s payroll system was structured to automatically assume breaks were taken, shifting the burden to employees to prove otherwise through a process many workers did not know existed. | high |
| 03 | Healthcare management companies like Reliant Care, which operates Levering, face pressure to maximize shareholder returns by minimizing controllable costs, with labor being one of the most significant line items. | medium |
| 04 | The alleged wage theft occurred in a residential care facility serving vulnerable populations, where corporate cost-cutting directly conflicts with the ethical obligation to provide adequate staffing and care. | high |
| 05 | Workers testified they could not leave their posts because of insufficient staffing levels, suggesting the company may have knowingly maintained inadequate coverage to reduce payroll expenses. | high |
| 06 | The stark contrast between zero reimbursement forms during the audit period and 883 pages afterward suggests Levering may have changed its practices only when facing legal scrutiny, not out of ethical commitment. | medium |
Worker Exploitation
The human cost · 7 points
| 01 | Nursing staff, certified medical technicians, quality-of-life advocates, hall monitors, and residential care coordinators all faced the same automatic 30-minute pay deduction despite performing direct patient care without breaks. | high |
| 02 | Employees told investigators they either never got lunch breaks or rarely received them because they simply did not have time due to the amount of work they had to complete. | high |
| 03 | Workers who spent their supposed break time monitoring patients, responding to emergencies, or completing required tasks received no compensation for that labor, effectively working for free. | high |
| 04 | The systematic nature of the wage deductions meant employees lost 2.5 hours of pay per week, a significant amount for healthcare workers who often earn wages close to minimum levels. | high |
| 05 | Five employees, including a supervisor, stated they were completely unaware of any mechanism to reclaim wages for missed breaks, suggesting either inadequate training or deliberate withholding of information. | medium |
| 06 | The Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employees from waiving their right to compensation, meaning workers cannot legally agree to work through breaks without pay, yet Levering’s system effectively forced them to do so. | high |
| 07 | Healthcare workers who dedicate themselves to caring for vulnerable residents faced the added burden of financial stress from systematic underpayment while performing emotionally and physically demanding work. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
Risks to patients and residents · 5 points
| 01 | When healthcare workers cannot take genuine breaks because they are the only staff member on the floor, patient safety is compromised by overworked, exhausted caregivers who may make critical errors. | high |
| 02 | Understaffing that prevents employees from leaving their posts for even 30 minutes creates conditions where medication administration, patient monitoring, and infection control protocols may suffer. | medium |
| 03 | Workers who feel systematically exploited and undercompensated may experience decreased morale and job satisfaction, leading to higher turnover that disrupts continuity of care for vulnerable residents. | medium |
| 04 | The residential care facility serves in-patient residents who depend on consistent, attentive care, yet the wage violations suggest chronic understaffing that directly threatens quality of care. | medium |
| 05 | High staff turnover driven by poor working conditions and wage theft forces facilities to constantly recruit and train new workers, reducing institutional knowledge and increasing risks to patient safety. | medium |
Community Impact
Broader consequences · 5 points
| 01 | When healthcare workers are systematically underpaid, they have less money to spend in local businesses, reducing economic activity in the community surrounding the facility. | low |
| 02 | Families who entrust their loved ones to Levering’s care face serious questions about whether the facility maintains adequate staffing and whether employee morale affects the quality of resident care. | medium |
| 03 | Public trust in healthcare institutions erodes when residential care facilities face allegations of exploiting the very workers responsible for protecting vulnerable populations. | medium |
| 04 | In communities where healthcare options are limited, allegations of labor violations at a major care facility can leave residents with fewer alternatives and increased anxiety about care quality. | medium |
| 05 | The lawsuit brought by the Department of Labor creates reputational damage that affects Levering’s relationships with patients, families, insurance partners, and regulatory agencies. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Why they got away with it · 7 points
| 01 | The district court initially granted summary judgment in Levering’s favor, demonstrating how legal hurdles can protect corporations even when substantial evidence of worker harm exists. | medium |
| 02 | Only after the Secretary of Labor appealed did the Eighth Circuit reverse the decision, highlighting how companies can use multiple levels of the court system to delay accountability. | medium |
| 03 | The company’s defense centered on blaming employees for not using the Temporary Time Sheet policy, attempting to shift responsibility away from management’s obligation to ensure workers are properly compensated. | high |
| 04 | Levering argued at oral argument that it simply lost the Temporary Time Sheets from the audit period, a claim the appeals court rejected as an inappropriate inference in the company’s favor. | medium |
| 05 | The legal standard requiring proof that the employer knew or should have known about overtime work creates opportunities for companies to claim ignorance, even when evidence suggests otherwise. | medium |
| 06 | Even if Levering is ultimately found liable, potential penalties may be modest compared to the wages saved through years of systematic underpayment, offering little deterrence to future violations. | medium |
| 07 | The drawn-out legal process, from initial investigation in 2020 through the appellate decision in 2025, demonstrates how companies can exploit delays that wear down both regulators and affected workers. | medium |
The PR Machine
Corporate spin tactics · 5 points
| 01 | Levering defended itself by pointing to its official Temporary Time Sheet policy, using the existence of formal procedures as evidence of compliance despite widespread employee testimony that the policy was unknown or inaccessible. | medium |
| 02 | The company claimed it informed employees about the reimbursement policy during orientation and in-service training, but could not explain why so many workers, including supervisors, remained unaware of it. | medium |
| 03 | Levering suggested that COVID-19 explained the surge in Temporary Time Sheet submissions after the audit period, attempting to deflect from questions about why zero forms appeared during the two-year investigation window. | medium |
| 04 | The corporate defense strategy relied on arguing that employees who did not remember the policy simply were not present for training, rather than acknowledging potential failures in communicating crucial wage-protection procedures. | medium |
| 05 | By maintaining that it had a reasonable policy in place, Levering attempted to characterize the wage violations as individual employee failures rather than systematic corporate exploitation. | high |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 6 points
| 01 | The Eighth Circuit’s decision to reverse summary judgment and remand for trial affirms that corporations cannot escape liability for wage theft simply by pointing to policies that employees cannot effectively access or use. | high |
| 02 | This case exemplifies how automated payroll systems can enable systematic wage theft when companies deduct breaks from employee pay without verifying those breaks actually occurred. | high |
| 03 | The stark evidentiary pattern of zero reimbursement requests during the audit period versus 883 pages afterward suggests either deliberate suppression of the policy or such ineffective communication that it functioned as window dressing. | high |
| 04 | Healthcare workers who provide essential care to vulnerable populations deserve protection from exploitation, yet profit-driven corporate structures create incentives to minimize labor costs even at the expense of legal compliance. | high |
| 05 | The case demonstrates that worker protection requires not just laws on the books, but active enforcement, accessible reporting mechanisms, and judicial recognition that formal policies mean nothing if employees cannot actually use them. | high |
| 06 | As the case returns to trial, it serves as a reminder that corporate accountability depends on regulators willing to investigate, workers brave enough to speak up, and courts that look beyond corporate defenses to examine actual workplace realities. | medium |
Timeline of Events
February 2018
Two-year audit period begins during which Levering allegedly deducts lunch breaks from employees who work through them
February 2020
Audit period ends with zero Temporary Time Sheets submitted by employees for missed breaks
March 2020
Department of Labor investigator Anne Thomas begins investigation into potential Fair Labor Standards Act violations
March 2020 – January 2021
Thomas interviews more than 40 Levering employees, most from the nursing department, about missed breaks and pay practices
January 2021
Department of Labor concludes investigation and determines Levering violated the FLSA
Date Unknown
Secretary of Labor files lawsuit against Levering Regional Health Care Center and Reliant Care Management Company
August 2022 – January 2023
Levering produces 883 pages of Temporary Time Sheets covering just four months, compared to zero for the two-year audit period
Date Unknown
District Court grants summary judgment in favor of Levering, finding no constructive knowledge of unpaid work
September 2024
Case argued before Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
March 26, 2025
Eighth Circuit reverses district court decision and remands case for trial, finding genuine disputes of material fact
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
The automatic deduction scheme
allegations
“During all relevant times, Levering automatically deducted 30 minutes from nursing-department employees’ time sheets for a lunch break every day.”
💡 This shows Levering systematically removed pay from all nursing staff regardless of whether they actually took breaks.
QUOTE 2
Workers could not leave their posts
workers
“More than a dozen employees told Thomas that it was impossible for them, and others, to take lunch breaks because there was no one on the floor who could relieve them from their duties.”
💡 Employees testified they were physically unable to take breaks due to understaffing, yet still lost pay for those breaks.
QUOTE 3
The missing reimbursement requests
accountability
“In response, Levering produced 883 pages of Temporary Time Sheets submitted between August 19, 2022, and January 3, 2023, but it failed to produce a single Temporary Time Sheet that was submitted during the two-year audit period.”
💡 The stark contrast between zero forms during violations and 883 pages afterward suggests the policy was not accessible or enforced during the audit period.
QUOTE 4
Employees did not know about the policy
regulatory
“Of the nineteen employees Thomas asked about the policy, five of them (including one employee who supervised all nursing staff on the floor) did not know about the Temporary Time Sheets, and fourteen of them did.”
💡 Even a supervisor responsible for all nursing staff was unaware of the process to reclaim wages, showing systemic communication failures.
QUOTE 5
Employers cannot avoid liability through ignorance
accountability
“Even if [the employer] had prohibited [the employee’s] overtime work . . . [the employer] could not avoid liability under the FLSA because he had actual and constructive knowledge that [the employee] worked overtime.”
💡 The court established that companies cannot escape wage-theft liability by claiming they told workers not to work unpaid hours if they knew or should have known it was happening.
QUOTE 6
Knowledge of unpaid work is what matters
allegations
“All that matters is whether an employer knew or should have known of the employee’s work: if either, the employer must compensate the employee.”
💡 This legal standard means Levering cannot hide behind formal policies if evidence shows it should have known employees were working unpaid.
QUOTE 7
Constructive knowledge is sufficient
regulatory
“An employer has constructive knowledge if . . . through reasonable diligence, [it] should have acquired knowledge that [the employees] were working in excess of their scheduled hours.”
💡 Companies must actively monitor whether employees are actually taking breaks, not just assume their payroll deductions are accurate.
QUOTE 8
A policy must be accessible to be reasonable
accountability
“An employer’s process must be reasonable, which at a minimum requires employees to know of the policy and how to use it.”
💡 The court rejected the idea that merely having a written policy is enough if workers cannot effectively access or use it.
QUOTE 9
The jury question on effective communication
pr_machine
“A reasonable jury could find that the absence of any time sheets submitted during the two-year audit period, contrasted with the over 800 time sheets submitted in a four-month period two years later, is evidence that Levering failed to effectively communicate its policy.”
💡 The appeals court found the dramatic difference in form submissions creates a factual question about whether Levering properly communicated wage protections to employees.
QUOTE 10
Employees cannot waive FLSA protections
workers
“[E]mployees cannot waive [their] entitlement to FLSA benefits . . . [O]nce an employer knows or has reason to know that an employee is working overtime, it cannot deny compensation even where the employee fails to claim overtime hours.”
💡 Workers are protected by law even if they do not formally request overtime pay, placing responsibility on employers to track and compensate all hours worked.
QUOTE 11
District court improperly favored the employer
accountability
“While these arguments may be appropriate for the jury, they fail at summary judgment because they inappropriately draw inferences in favor of Levering rather than in favor of the Secretary.”
💡 The appeals court found the lower court made a fundamental error by accepting Levering’s explanations rather than viewing evidence in the light most favorable to workers.
QUOTE 12
Staffing shortages independent of COVID
profit
“A reasonable jury could find this timing indicated there were staffing shortages independent of the impact of COVID-19.”
💡 The court rejected Levering’s attempt to blame pandemic conditions for wage violations that the evidence suggests were longstanding operational choices.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Levering Regional Health Care Center do wrong?
Levering automatically deducted 30 minutes per shift from nursing staff paychecks for lunch breaks, but employees testified they could not actually take those breaks because they were often the only caregiver on the floor. The company continued to dock their pay even though workers had to remain on duty caring for residents.
How much money did employees lose?
The court documents do not specify total dollar amounts, but each affected employee lost 30 minutes of pay per shift. Because many workers exceeded 40 hours per week, they also lost overtime pay calculated at time-and-a-half rates, which compounds the financial harm over the two-year violation period.
Did Levering have any policy for employees to get paid for missed breaks?
Yes, Levering had an unwritten policy requiring employees to submit a Temporary Time Sheet signed by their supervisor to reclaim pay for missed breaks. However, not a single such form was submitted during the entire two-year audit period, and five employees including a supervisor told investigators they had no knowledge the policy existed.
What happened when the Department of Labor investigated?
Investigator Anne Thomas interviewed more than 40 employees from March 2020 through January 2021. Many workers testified they never received lunch breaks or frequently had breaks interrupted. Based on this evidence, the Secretary of Labor filed a lawsuit for Fair Labor Standards Act violations.
Why did the court initially rule in favor of Levering?
The district court accepted Levering’s argument that its Temporary Time Sheet policy was reasonable and that the company lacked knowledge of unpaid work because employees failed to use the reporting process. The Eighth Circuit reversed this decision, finding that a jury should decide whether the policy was truly accessible and whether Levering should have known employees were working through breaks.
What was the smoking gun evidence in this case?
During the two-year audit period, Levering produced zero Temporary Time Sheets from employees requesting pay for missed breaks. But for just four months after the audit period ended, the company produced 883 pages of such forms. This dramatic contrast suggests the policy was either not communicated or not accessible to workers during the violation period.
Can my employer automatically deduct lunch breaks from my paycheck?
Employers can use automatic deduction systems, but they must ensure employees actually receive uninterrupted meal breaks. If you work through your break, your employer is legally required to pay you for that time. Under federal law, employers who know or should know you are working during breaks must compensate you, regardless of whether you formally request it.
What does constructive knowledge mean in wage theft cases?
Constructive knowledge means an employer should have known about overtime work through reasonable diligence, even if the employer claims it did not have actual knowledge. Courts look at whether a reasonable employer would have discovered the unpaid work through proper monitoring and oversight.
What happens to the case now?
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment and sent the case back for trial. A jury will now decide whether Levering knew or should have known that employees were working through lunch breaks, and if so, how much the company owes in back wages and potential penalties.
What can I do if I think my employer is doing something similar?
Document every instance where you work through a break but still have time deducted from your pay. Keep copies of your timesheets and any company policies about meal breaks. Contact the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division to file a complaint, or consult with an employment attorney who specializes in wage-and-hour cases. Federal law protects you from retaliation for reporting violations.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
