High court’s pro-employer ruling on unpaid hours may not affect California claims

WE previously reported on a case of warehouse employees at Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., a company which provides warehouse space and staffing to Amazon.com, who sued their employer in a class action, alleging that they spent as much as 25 minutes per day of unpaid time going through required security screenings at the end of their shifts.
The employees claimed that the security screenings were intended to prevent theft and thus is an integral and indispensable part of the employer’s business. The employees argued that the time spent for security checks should, therefore, be paid as work hours. The appellate court agreed that the employees may state a claim for back wages. The employer then appealed to the US Supreme Court.
This week, the US Supreme Court issued a decision, ruling that employees are not entitled to compensation under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for the time they spend undergoing security screenings.
Even if the security screenings benefitted the employer, the Court explained that employees should only be compensated for pre-shift and post-shift activities that are an “integral” and “indispensable” part of the employees’ “principal activities.”  The Court reasoned that the workers’ principal activity is to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package those products to Amazon customers and not to undergo security screenings. The security screenings were not an integral and indispensable part 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 a result, the Court held that the employees were not entitled to be paid for the time spent dealing with the screening procedures.
Although the ruling is disappointing to workers, we must note that the Integrity Staffing workers’ claim was brought under the FLSA, a federal law. For workers making a claim only under California’s laws on wages, this recent ruling may not even apply.
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. It includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so. Under this standard, we may not even have to ask whether the time spent is part of the employee’s “principal activities.” Under California law, employees must be paid for the time they are ‘subject to the control’ of their employer even if they are not working (i.e., not performing their principal activity) during that time.
Thus, so-called ‘unproductive’ time is still compensable. For example, employees who were required to report to a particular site and travel on buses provided by their employer are considered subject to the control of their employer, and must be paid for their travel time, even if they were not performing their principal work while travelling.
Employees who spend time under their employer’s control before or after their scheduled shifts should not take their time for granted. They should inquire with experienced employment attorneys to determine if additional wages are due to them under the law.

***

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.