The United States Supreme Court issued an interesting decision
last month on whether employees who are required to undergo
security screening after their work was done should be paid for
that time. The Supreme Court found in favor of the employer, and
concluded that workers did not have to be paid for that that time
because the screening was a non-compensable
"postliminary" activity under the Portal-to-Portal
Act.
In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the
employer was a company that provided staff to work in warehouses
for the online giant, Amazon. A group of workers filed a class
action in 2010 against the staffing company seeking unpaid wages
under the FLSA. According to their complaint, workers were required
to pass a security screening at the end of the day in order to
deter theft of product from the warehouse. The workers alleged that
it could take workers up to 25 minutes to compete the screening
process, for which they were not paid. Because the screening was
allegedly necessary and for the employer's benefit, the workers
claimed they should have been compensated for the time.
Initially, the federal district court dismissed the workers'
case for failing to state a viable legal claim. The district court
ruled that the security screening was a non-compensable
"postliminary" activity under the Portal-to-Portal Act
because it was not an "integral and indispensable part of the
warehouse duties the workers were hired to perform. The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed and reversed, holding
that the screening was a postliminary activity, but was compensable
because it was necessary to the warehouse work and for the benefit
of the employer. The employer successfully petitioned the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear the case.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme
Court reversed. The Court started with the proposition that the
Portal-to Portal Act makes noncompensable "activities which
are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or
activities" of a worker's job. Citing its long-standing
interpretation of the Act, the Court stated that "the term
'principal activity or activities' [embraces] all
activities which are an 'integral and indispensable part of the
principal activities.'"
The Court held that under the Portal-to-Portal Act, employers were
not required to pay workers for postliminary activities that were
not integral to the workers' warehouse duties. In a succinct
analysis, the Court concluded:
The security screenings at issue here are noncompensable, postliminary activities. To begin with, the screenings were not the "principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform." 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(1). Integrity Staffing did not employ its workers to undergo security screenings, but to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package those products for shipment to Amazon customers.
The security screenings also were not "integral and indispensable" to the employees' duties as warehouse workers. As explained above, an activity is not integral and indispensable to an employee's principal activities unless it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform those activities. The screenings were not an intrinsic element of retrieving products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment. And Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees' ability to complete their work.
As savvy HR professionals and in-house counsel know, this case
does not create a blanket rule that renders noncompensable
every activity after a worker leaves his or her work station. Each
situation is different will generally require a detailed analysis
of the particular facts. Indeed, in this case, it took about half a
decade in the federal courts to come to a final answer.
The case is a relatively straightforward read, and contains a good
history and discussion of the Portal-to-Portal Act. For those who
are interested, the Supreme Court's decision can be found here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.