On December 9, 2014, in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruled that employees are not entitled to be compensated for time spent undergoing security checks before leaving an employer’s facilities. The case turned on an interpretation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“the FLSA”), and specifically the Portal-to-Portal Act, which is part of the FLSA and exempts employers from paying employees for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the employee’s “principal work activity or activities.”

While the case could have broad implications in many states, California law specifically rejects the application of the Portal-to-Portal Act to California wage and hour laws—meaning that, had the case been brought under California law, it may well have gone the other way.

Integrity Staffing involved employees working for Amazon. The employees were subject to search upon exiting the employer’s facilities, allegedly for up to 25 minutes per day. They sought compensation under federal law but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the claims. The Supreme Court concluded that security screening were not the employees’ principal activities, because (1) they had not been hired to undergo security screenings, and equally (2) could do their actual jobs without security screenings.

Comment: We do not believe this case will have much, if any, impact on our clients because California law is significantly more protective of employees than is federal law in this area. California law specifically rejects the Portal-to-Portal Act—meaning the entire rationale of the Integrity Staffing decision would not apply in a case under California law. California law uses the “control test,” generally making time in which an employee is subject to the employer’s control compensable.

A good example of how protective the California “control test” standard can be involved police officers employed by the City of Madera in Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera. The Court decided whether police officer meal breaks were compensable. During those breaks, officers could eat a meal, but they were required to keep their radios on, respond to calls, stay in uniform and be responsive to inquiries from members of the public. In interpreting California law, the California Supreme Court considered different inquiries than did the United States Supreme Court in Integrity Staffing. The California court had a two-fold analysis of whether the time was compensable: (1) whether the restrictions on employees are “primarily directed toward the fulfillment of the employer's requirements and policies,” and (2) whether employees are “substantially restricted during Code 7 time, so as to be unable to attend to private pursuits.” Taking into account the restrictions placed on the police officers by the employer, the Supreme Court concluded that “constraints placed on the activities and conduct of the concerned employees during their mealtime are so restrictive that the employees are at work and are thus entitled to … compensation.”

Turning back to Integrity Staffing, the reason the Amazon employees can be required to be subject to a security screening is because they are completely under the control of their employer. Under California law, that may well be enough to ensure compensability.

If you have any questions, please contact Gregg Adam at gregg@majlabor.com.