Skip to main content

Updated: Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk - United States Supreme Court


Earlier this year, I keyed in on a case pending before the United States Supreme Court that readers should keep an eye on, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk.  (Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk - Original Update).  Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case.  For those who do not remember, this case concerns whether workers who have already clocked out for the work day, but are still required to go through employer mandated screening before leaving work, should be compensated for that time spent in security screening.

The employer, Integrity, spent a majority of the time during oral argument focused on the position that the security screening process is simply a part of leaving work for the day.  Since employees are not paid for time spent punching out, the argument followed that employees should not be paid for emptying their pockets at the end of the day and going through screening.

The federal government has joined the petitioner's side for this case and was given the opportunity to provide additional arguments to the Court last week as well.  Most notably, however, the attorney that appeared on behalf of the federal government got tripped up when Justice Kagan asked whether extra pay would be due for a casino employee, store clerk, or bank teller, who reported after hours to a manager as part of an anti-theft policy. 

When the attorney who represents the employees got a chance to argue his position, he narrowed the case down to two points that the Court should consider:  1)  Is this [the time spent in security screening] work? and 2)  Is it [the time spent in security screening] for the employer's benefit?  The argument followed that if the Court answered "yes" to these questions, the task required the employer to pay the employees. 

At this point, the case in the hands of the Court.  I would expect a ruling on the matter within the next few months.  Based upon how oral arguments went, I think this might ultimately end up being a win for employees who spend time in security screenings, yet do not get paid for this time by their employers.

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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more