• FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR

  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE

HR Morning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • More
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Staff Administration
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • Employee Services
    • Work Location
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans

High Court's decision could end up costing employers big

Tim Gould
by Tim Gould
October 10, 2014
3 minute read
  • SHARE ON

Should employees get paid for standing in line, waiting to be checked to make sure they haven’t stolen anything during the workday?

That’s the bottom line in a case now pending before the Supreme Court. It involves workers at an Amazon warehouse in Nevada who claim they should be paid for the time they spend going through security screening at the end of their shifts. A federal appeals court ruled in the employees’ favor, saying the screening was part of the normal process of warehouse work.
The suit actually involves an independent staffing firm, Integrity Staffing Solutions, which provides personnel for the Amazon warehouse.
The warehouse in question was facing employee theft problems, so it instituted post-shift security checks — which, employees alleged, delayed employees from leaving for up to a half hour.
The federal appeals court held that the screenings were “integral and indispensable” — the literal standard for employee activities that are compensable — because they were conducted for the company’s benefit and “necessary to the principal work performed.”

Decision could shift landscape

Why’s this case so important to employers? It could greatly expand a number of employee activities that have, up to this point, been deemed non-compensable — things that are “preliminary” (pre-shift) and “postliminary” (post-shift).
Employment law attorney James Nicholas, who specializes in wage-and-hour litigation for the law firm Mintz Levin, explained that should the Supreme Court uphold the earlier decision, “Activities which have historically been considered non-compensable — such as time spent waiting to punch a time clock, walking from an employer’s parking lot to the workplace, or changing into a uniform on the employer’s premises — would need to be reanalyzed (and re-litigated) under a new formulation of the ‘integral and indispensable’ test.”
In opening arguments before the court this week, attorneys for the staffing company argued that “going through security as part of the egress process is a class postliminary activity that is non-compensable under the Port-to-Portal Act.”
The employees’ legal argument was somewhat surprising, according to Nicholas. The employees’ position was simply that because the employer required the screening and it was in the employer’s interest, it was compensable — leaving alone the argument that the activity was “integral and indispensable.”
“That could be a bridge too far (for the court to cross),” said Nicholas, adding that he doubted the court would be amenable to adopting such a broad rule.

Differing viewpoints

As might be expected, the justices seemed to lean a couple different ways during the opening arguments. A few of their comments from the court transcript:

  • Chief John Justice Roberts (pro-employer): “No one’s principal activity is going through security screening. The employer doesn’t hire somebody … to go through screening. He hires them to do something and then the employee screening is certainly not the principal (activity).”
  • Justice Elena Kagan (pro-employee): “… What makes it Amazon? It’s a system of inventory control that betters everybody else in the business. And what’s really important to Amazon is that it knows where every toothbrush in the warehouse is. And that’s just as integral to what Amazon does as … the person who closes out the cash register [or] the person who closes out the bank teller operation.”
  • Justice Stephen Breyer (on the fence): ” …[I]n my own mind, I can think of five things I’d like to know about [the screening] activity … So shouldn’t we send it back so if [the employees] wanted to develop the record further, they can?”

Justice Breyer’s stance could indicate the way the court will finally go, Nicholas said: “[The employees] say the screenings can last up to 25 minutes, but they don’t offer any actual data. The easiest thing for the court to do would be to remand the case to the lower court to gather additional facts about the screening itself.”
The court is expected to release its decision early in 2015. We’ll keep you posted.

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES

Keep Up To Date with the Latest HR News

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

Sign up for a free HRMorning membership and get our newsletter!
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • HR Technology
  • Performance Management
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation & Payroll
  • Policy & Culture
  • Staff Administration
  • Wellness & Safety
  • Staff Departure
  • Employee Services
  • Work Location
  • HR Career & Self-Care

HRMorning, part of the SuccessFuel Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day’s headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Privacy Policy Terms of Service
Copyright © 2021 SuccessFuel

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

preloader