Skip to main content

This Just In: Time Spent In Security Screenings at Work is NOT Compensable Time

As with several cases from around the country, I pay particular attention to a certain few and watch as the case develops at the appellate level.  This is one in particular was handed down by the United States Supreme Court earlier today.


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


Facts:  The employees at issue in this case 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 employees allegedly waited in line for 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 theft of any items by employees. 

The United States District Court in Nevada dismissed the lawsuit and held that the time spent in screening was postliminary, noncompensable time as it was not integral and indispensable to the employees' principal activities.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and held that activities that might normally be considered postliminary (and therefore noncompensable) become compensable if they are required and performed for the employer's benefit.

Holding:  In its decision overruling the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court noted that security screenings were not the employees' "principal activities" (ie Integrity Staffing had not hired the employees to undergo security screenings).  As a result, the security screenings were not "integral and indispensable" to the employees' work as warehouse workers as the employees could do their work, retrieving packages, without these screenings.   

In an effort to define exactly what activity is compensable, the Court held that an activity is integral and indespensable to the principal activity that an employee is employed to perform (and therefore compensable under the FLSA) if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.  The roughly twenty five minutes that these employees spent in security screenings was therefore held to not be needed for the employees to perform their principal activities.

Judgment:  In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that time which employees spent in security screenings at work is not compensable under the FLSA.

The Takeaway:  This is one of those that kept me on the edge of my seat waiting for the ruling from the Supreme Court.  The opinion is not really all that surprising, considering that this Court held in Sandifer v. United States Steel (Sandifer v. United States Steel Blog) that time spent changing in and out of protective gear and clothing was not compensable time.  

In this instance, this ruling is a clear victory for employers.  Except for unusual situations, employers who require employees to undergo these types of security screenings at work can feel more comfortable that the time spent in screenings is not compensable and an employee who challenges this as an FLSA violation likely will not prevail.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Justice Thomas

Date:  December 9, 2014

Opinion:   http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf


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

Senator Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill Requiring Large Corporations To Pay For Federal Assistance Programs

Next week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is set to introduce legislation which would require large employers such as Walmart, Amazon, and McDonald's to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and other federal assistance programs that their employees receive.  Senator Sanders has stated that the goal is to force these large employers to pay their employees a living wage and cut back on the nearly $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go toward funding these federal programs every year. As for the specifics, a 100% tax on government benefits received would be imposed on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees.  For instance, if a Walmart employee received $500 in food stamps, Walmart would be taxed $500. To call this proposed legislation groundbreaking would be an understatement.  I would expect that Senator Sanders, an Independent that caucuses with Democrats, is going to face an uphill battle gett...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more