“No Overtime” for after-work security check at workplace: Supreme Court
A case argued in October 2014 was finally decided on December 9, 2014. The case of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. vs. Jesse Buck, No. 13-433, 190 L. Ed. 2d 410; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8293 involved an issue as to whether the time spent by warehouse employees waiting to undergo and undergoing post shift security screenings could be considered as payable in accordance with Fair Labor Standards Act. The employer wanted the employees to undergo an antitheft screening before leaving the premises each day. The question within the minds of employees was whether the time spent waiting to undergo such a screening was compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U. S. C. §201 et seq., as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, §251 et seq..
The Supreme Court of the Unites States of America came down to two conclusions:
First, that the required security screenings were not considered as integral and indispensable in comparison to another physical activity the employees were employed to perform. If the screening was somewhere related to the principal work that the employees were asked to perform then it would have been a compensable task and would have been payable under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U. S. C. §201 et seq., as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, §251 et seq..
Second, the Court held that the screenings were not themselves considered as principal activities that the employees were obligated to perform. As the statute’s use of the words ‘preliminary’ and ‘postliminary’ in §254(a)(2), the precedents make clear that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 is primarily concerned with defining the beginning and end of the workday. It distinguishes between activities that are essentially part of the ingress and egress process, on one hand, and activities that constitute the actual “work of consequence performed for an employer,” on the other hand. The security screening falls on the preliminary and postliminary side of the line. The searches that were done were a part of the process and did not include any principal work. Therefore, if the employees had to stand in line to get the screening done, it did not turn out to be compensable in nature and not in accordance with the FLSA.
The Supreme Court of the United States made an easy victory in favor of the employers by giving no compensation to the employees under FLSA.
Related Content
Indo-US Legal Sector Redefined: Consulate General of India, New York, SEPC India, and Draft n Craft Join Forces.
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES, June 29, 2023-The Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference, a groundbreaking event aimed at fostering...
Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference to Unite Legal Professionals from India and the United States
Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference to Unite Legal Professionals from India and the United States This...
Importance of Medical Records Summaries in Mass Tort Litigation
Mass torts cases are complex and often involve multiple plaintiffs who have suffered harm from the same product...
Care Plus and its Entities Agree to Pay $7.2 Million Against Anti-Kickback Allegations
On April 13, 2022, Care Plus Management, LLC (“Care Plus”), its founders Paul D. Weir and John R....
Copper Creek (Marysville) | Washington Court of Appeals on Effect of Bankruptcy Discharge on Statute of Limitations
On April 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 granted the motion for reconsideration and...
Federal District Court, California Dismisses Class Action Suit for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction
On April 01, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in dismissal of...
Southern District of Florida Grants Motion to Dismiss in Mass Class Action
On April 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has granted motion...
First Department Ordered New Trial in Personal Injury Damages Lawsuit
On March 29, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department, decided in Miller v. Camelot Communications Group, Inc., 2022...
Supreme Court of Georgia Rules out Product Liability due to Third Party’s Wrongful Behavior
The Supreme Court of Georgia on March 15, 2022, decided in Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., Case that a...
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): Employers fate to be decided in 2022
On December 15, 2021, the United States Supreme Court announced to review the most consequential PAGA case Viking...
New Jersey Lawmakers Advance Bill To Allow Pandemic Insurance
A New Jersey Assembly committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that would permit insurers to offer coverage to policyholders...
Tech groups criticize Florida’s social media law as Unconstitutional.
Tech groups criticize Florida's social media law as unconstitutional.
New York ‘HERO’ Act requires employers to establish airborne infectious disease safety protocols.
The New York HERO Act (S.1034-B/A.2681-B), a critical bill requiring businesses to have enforceable safety standards to prevent...
Cost-padding, profit shedding law firms! Are you one of them?
Cost padding happens when a business deliberately inflates its costs than what it has incurred and then passes...
Bystander Emotional Distress Claims expands to Med-Mal Cases
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in Maloney v. Conroy, 208 Conn. 392 (1988), provided for family members to...
Product Liability Claim: Massachusetts Court Emphasizes on Importance of Specificity of Facts
In a recent case of Dunn v. Genzyme Corp, SJC-12904, (Mass. 2021), the Supreme Judicial Court for the...
Causation in Complex Torts:
Lessons from Zantac and Paraquat Dismissals In complex tort litigation, particularly toxic torts and mass actions, proving causation...
The Third Circuit Seeks Answer From Pennsylvania Supreme Court Regarding Medical Device Strict Liability
On June 24, 2021, the Third Circuit once again sought clarification from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania regarding...
