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, 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