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

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 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