Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Search & Employ: U.S. Supreme Court Holds Employees Not Entitled to Pay for Post-Shift Security Searches

By Michele L. Jakubs*

In the unanimous decision issued yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the time employees spend waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8293 (Dec. 9, 2014). This decision reaffirms that not all work-related activities are compensable.

Under the FLSA, employers must pay non-exempt employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 hours in a workweek and overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. The Portal-to-Portal Act exempts employers from liability under the FLSA with respect to certain categories of work-related activities. Under the Portal-to-Portal Act, employers need not compensate employees for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the employees’ principal work activities. Courts interpret the Portal-to-Portal Act to require compensation for preliminary or postliminary activities that are “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ principal work activities. For example, the time battery-plant employees spend showering and changing clothes because of exposure to toxic chemicals and the time meatpacker employees spend sharpening their knives is compensable because without these steps, the employees cannot safely or effectively perform their principal job activities.

The employees in Integrity Staffing claimed that under the FLSA they were entitled to pay for time spent waiting in line and going through employer-mandated security searches at the end of their shifts. The employees, whose duties included retrieving and packaging products for shipment to Amazon customers, argued that the employer conducted security searches to prevent employee theft and that the searches were solely for the benefit of the employer and its customers. The employees also argued that the time was compensable because the employer could have minimized the time associated with the security searches by adding more screeners and staggering the end of shifts.

The case came before the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which agreed with the employees that the time was compensable. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that the employer required the employees to perform the activity at issue. The Supreme Court rejected this analysis as it extended coverage to activities that Congress clearly meant to exclude from compensation under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Supreme Court also noted that an analysis focused on whether the activity is for the employer’s benefit is similarly overbroad.

In finding the security search time not compensable, the Supreme Court stated that the screenings were not the employees’ principal work activities (i.e., retrieving and packaging products) and were not integral and indispensable to their principal activities. The Supreme Court highlighted that the employer employed the employees to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package those products for shipment. The employer did not employ its employees to undergo security screenings. In addition, the screenings were not an intrinsic element of the employees’ job. The employer could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work. Therefore, the employer was not required to compensate employees for this time under the Portal-to-Portal Act. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the employees’ argument related to the employer’s alleged failure to minimize the security search time, stating that such issues are suited for the bargaining table and not an FLSA lawsuit.

The Integrity Staffing decision highlights the potentially complicated analysis employers must conduct when determining whether or not to compensate employees for time spent performing work-related activities. Employers should seek legal advice in making these determinations as they could lead to liability under the FLSA and similar state laws.

Michele L. Jakubs, an OSBA Certified Specialist in Labor and Employment Law, practices in all areas of labor and employment law. For more information on the FLSA’s wage and hour requirements, the Portal-to-Portal Act, or the Integrity Staffing decision please contact Michele | mlj@zrlaw.com | 216.696.4441