Wage insecurity on security checks: Should employees be paid while at employer’s security line?

ACCORDING to reports, Walgreens, the drug retail chain, was sued by its California employees for, among other things, failure to provide employees the required meal and rest breaks and for failing to pay employees for their spent at work undergoing security searches. The case is on behalf of Walgreens’ hourly managers or assistant store managers and all nonexempt retail employees in employer’s retail stores.
Rather than proceed to trial, the parties agreed to settle the case for about $23 million, which will benefit about 40,000 Walgreens employees in California.
Of interest here is the employees’ claims of unpaid time for being subjected to security searches. This type of claim seems to be more and more in the news of late. Security checks, particularly after an employee’s shift, is nothing new. Retail companies who employ workers to handle their merchandise are concerned of the theft of these merchandise by employees. Thus, companies set up detailed security measures to minimize their losses. However, the procedure may result in wage losses to employees as they spend significant time going through security checkpoints.
Under California law, employees should be paid for all hours worked. “Hours worked” is that time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer. When employees perform preparatory and concluding activities at work, it can be argued that they are under the control of the employer.
However, an employee’s preparatory and concluding activities must be paid only if the activity is “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s principal activities, or is required by law or company rules. This means an activity must be (1) “necessary to the principal work performed” and (2) “done for the benefit of the employer.”
A few months back, we reported on a case regarding warehouse employees at Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., a company which provides warehouse space and staffing to Amazon.com. The employees sued their employer in a class action, alleging that they spent an average of 25 minutes per day of unpaid time going through required security screenings at the end of their shifts.
The Appellate Court had decided that since the security screenings required by their employer were intended to prevent theft, the screening is thus an integral and indispensable part of the employer’s business. Therefore, the employees may state a claim for back wages. The employer then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to review the case.
The high court must decide, once and for all, whether warehouse employees must be paid for time spent after their shift undergoing security screenings to determine whether they had stolen merchandise from their workplace.
An interesting twist has occurred in the warehouse employees’ case. According to court dockets, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has filed a brief in support of the employer’s position. Aside from wanting to clarify how the law should be enforced, the DOL said the government is interested in the outcome of the case because it also has many employees who are required to undergo security checks in various situations.
Of course, a change in federal law may or may not affect California’s own laws. However, since California’s enforcement policy on preparatory and concluding activities is similar to the federal position, the high court ruling in this case is hotly anticipated.

***

The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost.  Atty. Sayas’ Law Office is located at 500 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 980, Glendale, CA 91203. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit  www.joesayaslaw.com.

***

C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is trial attorney who has obtained several million dollar recoveries for his clients against employers and insurance companies. He has been selected as a Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, featured in the cover of Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Verdicts and Settlements, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.
(Advertising Supplement)