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

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

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more