Worker Rights and Support Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 21, 2026
Bottom line
The Worker Rights and Support Act establishes new federal requirements for paid and unpaid employee breaks, while paradoxically removing key enforcement powers for the entire Fair Labor Standards Act.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to mandate specific meal, rest, restroom, and medical breaks for employees. It requires a 30-minute meal break for every 6 hours of work, which must be paid at an overtime rate if the employee is not fully relieved of duties. It also mandates paid rest and restroom breaks (10 minutes or reasonable restroom time per 4 hours) and paid medical breaks (up to 20 minutes each) for conditions communicated by a healthcare provider. The bill also significantly repeals Section 10 of the FLSA, which grants the Secretary of Labor powers for investigations and inspections.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for protecting worker health, safety, and well-being by ensuring employees receive adequate breaks during their shifts. They contend that guaranteed, paid breaks will reduce workplace injuries, improve productivity, and provide necessary relief for employees, especially those with medical conditions, preventing exploitation and promoting a healthier work-life balance.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill imposes significant new costs and administrative burdens on employers, particularly small businesses, due to mandated paid breaks and potential overtime for meal breaks. They might also raise concerns about the practical challenges of scheduling and managing these breaks, and the potential for reduced operational flexibility. The repeal of FLSA Section 10 would be a major point of contention, as it would severely undermine the enforcement capabilities of the Department of Labor, making the new break provisions, and indeed the entire FLSA, difficult to uphold.
The bill is concise and relatively straightforward to read, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 8(a) into FLSA
Mandatory Meal Breaks
This provision requires employers to provide a meal break of at least 30 minutes for every 6-hour period an employee works. If the employee is not fully relieved of all work duties or the expectation of work, or is not free to leave the premises during this break, the employer must compensate the employee for the full break time at one and a half times their regular rate of pay. Employees can waive this break, but employers cannot compel them to do so.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mandatory meal breaks are crucial for employee health, preventing fatigue, and ensuring workers have time to rest and refuel, which can lead to increased productivity and reduced workplace accidents. The provision for paid breaks when not fully relieved protects workers from being 'on call' without compensation.
Critics contend
Critics contend that mandating specific meal break durations and requiring overtime pay for interrupted breaks could significantly increase labor costs and operational complexities for businesses. They may argue it reduces flexibility for both employers and employees, particularly in industries with continuous operations or unpredictable demands.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for employee well-being and fair compensation against employer flexibility and potential increased operational costs. The waiver option provides some flexibility, but the 'not fully relieved' clause creates a significant financial incentive for employers to ensure complete disengagement during breaks, which may not always be practical.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 8(b) into FLSA
Mandatory Paid Rest and Restroom Breaks
This provision requires employers to provide a paid break during each 4-hour work period. The break must be either 10 minutes long or a reasonable period of time to use the nearest functioning and accessible restroom, whichever is longer. Employees must be compensated for this break time at their regular rate of pay.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 8(c) into FLSA
Mandatory Paid Medical Breaks
This provision requires employers to provide paid break times, not exceeding 20 minutes each, for employees who reasonably require them due to a medical condition. The medical condition must be communicated to the employer by a healthcare provider, either directly or indirectly through the employee. These breaks are compensated at the employee's regular rate of pay.
Section 2(b) - Enforcement
Enhanced Enforcement for Break Violations
This section amends existing FLSA provisions related to prohibited acts and penalties to specifically include violations of the new break requirements. It expands the scope of enforcement actions, allowing for legal or equitable relief against employers who violate the break provisions. Additionally, it extends the statute of limitations under the Portal-to-Portal Act to cover causes of action related to these new break requirements, giving employees more time to seek redress.
This section repeals Section 10 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 210). Section 10 of the FLSA grants the Secretary of Labor the authority to conduct investigations and inspections, gather data, require employers to keep records, and question employees to determine compliance with the Act.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:The labeling as a 'conforming amendment' for a repeal of such a significant enforcement power is highly unusual and potentially evasive. It could be an oversight, a deliberate attempt to weaken FLSA enforcement while appearing to strengthen worker rights, or a highly controversial policy choice disguised as a technicality.
Case for: There is no clear public case for repealing FLSA Section 10, especially in a bill titled 'Worker Rights and Support Act.' If this were intentional, a highly unlikely argument might be that it reduces government overreach or bureaucratic burden, but this would contradict the bill's overall purpose.
Case against: Critics would vehemently argue that repealing FLSA Section 10 would effectively gut the enforcement capabilities of the Department of Labor for the entire Fair Labor Standards Act, including the new break provisions introduced by this very bill. Without the power to investigate, inspect, and gather data, the DOL would be severely hampered in ensuring compliance with minimum wage, overtime, child labor, and now, break time laws. This would render many worker protections unenforceable.
Estimated impact: The repeal would have a profound, negative impact on the federal government's ability to enforce labor laws, potentially leading to widespread non-compliance with FLSA provisions across all industries.