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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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