Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, United States Supreme Court



As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  The Plaintiffs claimed that their employer failed to compensate them for time spent in security screenings at the end of each work shift, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The Plaintiffs alleged that employees waited up to twenty five minutes to be searched, with the search including the removal of employees' wallets, belts, and keys and passing through a metal detector.  The employer claimed these searches were necessary to minimize "shrinkage" and control the theft of any items by the employees.  

Note that the FLSA generally does not provide for compensation for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the employee's principal activities.  Preliminary and postliminary activities that are "integral and indispensable" are compensable under the FLSA, however.  To be "integral and indispensable", the activity must be (1) necessary to the principal work performed and (2) done for the benefit of the employer.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and held that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the security checks were necessary to their primary work as warehouse workers and done for the employer's benefit.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals found this time was compensable under the FLSA.

 Looking Back:  Two recent cases that have been ruled upon may provide some guidance on how this case will be decided.  In the first case handed down by the Supreme Court recently, Sandifer v. United States Steel (Sandifer v. United States Steel blog), the Supreme Court held that time spent changing in and out of protective gear and clothing was not compensable time under the FLSA. 

As for the second case, a District Court in California decided the case of Troester v. Starbucks, Corp. (Troester v. Starbucks Corp. blog) and held that the time Starbucks baristas spent closing down the store after clocking out was de minimis time, and therefore not compensable.  

The Main Issue:  Whether time spent in security screenings at work is compensable time under the FLSA. 

Lower Court Opinion:  http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Busk_v_Integrity_Staffing_Solutions_Inc_713_F3d_525_20_WH_Cases2d

Current Status:  On March 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition in this case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more