Time Spent Undergoing Security Screenings Not Compensable
- By Your mom
- •
- 10 Feb, 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that time spent by employees waiting to undergo
workplace security screenings is not compensable. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk.
Integrity required employees at its warehouse operations to undergo anti-theft screenings
at the end of each shift. The process took up to 25 minutes each day, during which time the
employees received no pay. As a result, the employees filed suit claiming they should have been
paid as the screenings were purely for the benefit of the employer, and that the time spent could
have been reduced to a de minimis amount had the employer added additional screeners, or
staggered shift ending times.
In ruling against the employees, the Court reviewed the history of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the subsequent Portal to Portal Act, which narrowed the definition of
compensable work time. While any time spent performing “principal activities” is compensable,
under the Portal to Portal Act, time spent on “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities, which are
those performed prior to or after an employee’s “principal activities,” is non-compensable. To
be considered a “principal activity” the work must be an “integral and indispensable” part of the
work the employee is hired to perform. Stated differently, to be considered paid time, the
activity must be necessary, and if eliminated would prevent the employee from performing the
job for which they were hired.
The Court went on to provide examples from prior cases to differentiate paid and unpaid
time. Found compensable was time spent by battery-plant employees showering and changing
clothes after their shift because they worked with toxic chemicals, and such showering was an
integral and indispensable part of the safe performance of their job. Also, time spent by
meatpackers sharpening their knives was a necessary activity, which if not performed would
prevent an employee from performing their central job of butchering animals.
By contrast, time spent clocking in or out, changing clothes or showering where such
activities were merely for the convenience of the employee, and waiting for paychecks to be
disbursed, has been found to be non-compensable.
Given this background, the Court found that the time spent waiting to undergo security
screenings in the instant case was non compensable because the screenings were not an integral
and indispensable element of the employees’ principal duties, which were to retrieve and
package products for shipment to customers. In essence, with or without the screenings, the
employees could still fully perform their principal warehouse tasks.
The Court specifically rejected the employees’ two main arguments. Just because the
screenings were required by the employer does not convert the time to paid time. As stated by
the Court, applying such a standard would “sweep into principal activities the very activities the
Portal to Portal Act was designed to address.” Further, even if the amount of time could have
been reduced by adding screeners or staggering shift times, doing so would not have changed the
fact that any time spent in the screening process was unrelated to the principal duties for which
the employees were hired.
This case illustrates the need to carefully analyze any non-compensable time spent by
employees at work in order to make sure such unpaid time meets the tests enunciated by the
Court.
workplace security screenings is not compensable. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk.
Integrity required employees at its warehouse operations to undergo anti-theft screenings
at the end of each shift. The process took up to 25 minutes each day, during which time the
employees received no pay. As a result, the employees filed suit claiming they should have been
paid as the screenings were purely for the benefit of the employer, and that the time spent could
have been reduced to a de minimis amount had the employer added additional screeners, or
staggered shift ending times.
In ruling against the employees, the Court reviewed the history of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the subsequent Portal to Portal Act, which narrowed the definition of
compensable work time. While any time spent performing “principal activities” is compensable,
under the Portal to Portal Act, time spent on “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities, which are
those performed prior to or after an employee’s “principal activities,” is non-compensable. To
be considered a “principal activity” the work must be an “integral and indispensable” part of the
work the employee is hired to perform. Stated differently, to be considered paid time, the
activity must be necessary, and if eliminated would prevent the employee from performing the
job for which they were hired.
The Court went on to provide examples from prior cases to differentiate paid and unpaid
time. Found compensable was time spent by battery-plant employees showering and changing
clothes after their shift because they worked with toxic chemicals, and such showering was an
integral and indispensable part of the safe performance of their job. Also, time spent by
meatpackers sharpening their knives was a necessary activity, which if not performed would
prevent an employee from performing their central job of butchering animals.
By contrast, time spent clocking in or out, changing clothes or showering where such
activities were merely for the convenience of the employee, and waiting for paychecks to be
disbursed, has been found to be non-compensable.
Given this background, the Court found that the time spent waiting to undergo security
screenings in the instant case was non compensable because the screenings were not an integral
and indispensable element of the employees’ principal duties, which were to retrieve and
package products for shipment to customers. In essence, with or without the screenings, the
employees could still fully perform their principal warehouse tasks.
The Court specifically rejected the employees’ two main arguments. Just because the
screenings were required by the employer does not convert the time to paid time. As stated by
the Court, applying such a standard would “sweep into principal activities the very activities the
Portal to Portal Act was designed to address.” Further, even if the amount of time could have
been reduced by adding screeners or staggering shift times, doing so would not have changed the
fact that any time spent in the screening process was unrelated to the principal duties for which
the employees were hired.
This case illustrates the need to carefully analyze any non-compensable time spent by
employees at work in order to make sure such unpaid time meets the tests enunciated by the
Court.
