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,...
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

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