Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk
190 L. Ed. 2d 410, 135 S.Ct. 513, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8293 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Portal-to-Portal Act's exemption for preliminary and postliminary activities applies to security screenings not integral and indispensable to an employee's principal activities, meaning they are not compensable under the FLSA if they are not an intrinsic element of, and cannot be dispensed with for, performing the principal duties.
Facts:
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. provided warehouse staffing to Amazon.com.
- Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro were hourly employees of Integrity Staffing, whose principal duties involved retrieving products from warehouse shelves and packaging them for delivery to Amazon customers.
- Integrity Staffing required its employees to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse at the end of each workday.
- During the security screening, employees removed items like wallets, keys, and belts and passed through metal detectors.
- The employees spent approximately 25 minutes each day waiting for and undergoing these security screenings.
- The employees alleged that the screenings were conducted solely to prevent employee theft and therefore benefited only the employers and their customers.
- The employees further alleged that the time spent on screenings could have been reduced to a de minimis amount by adding more screeners or staggering shift terminations.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro filed a putative class action against Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. in District Court for alleged violations of the FLSA and Nevada labor laws.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that the security screenings were not integral and indispensable to the employees’ principal activities and were instead noncompensable postliminary activities.
- The employees appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision in relevant part, asserting that postshift activities required by the employer and performed for the employer’s benefit are compensable as integral and indispensable.
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the time employees spend waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings at the end of their shift compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, as an "integral and indispensable" part of their principal activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No, the time that employees spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA, because these activities are noncompensable postliminary activities and are not an "integral and indispensable" part of their principal duties. The Portal-to-Portal Act, enacted to address an emergency created by broad judicial interpretations of "work" under the FLSA, exempts employers from liability for "activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to" an employee's principal activities. The term "principal activities" includes those which are an "integral and indispensable part" of the principal activities. An activity is "integral and indispensable" if it is an intrinsic element of the employee's principal activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform those activities, as seen in cases like Steiner v. Mitchell (showering for toxic chemicals) and Mitchell v. King Packing Co. (sharpening knives). Here, the security screenings were not the principal activities the employees were employed to perform (retrieving and packaging products), nor were they an intrinsic element of those activities. Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work. The Ninth Circuit erred by focusing on whether the employer required the activity or if it was for the employer's benefit, rather than whether it was tied to the productive work the employee was employed to perform. Such a broad interpretation would reintroduce the very activities the Portal-to-Portal Act sought to exclude. The argument that screening time could be de minimis is for the bargaining table, not a court.
Concurring - Justice Sotomayor
I concur with the Court's opinion, confirming that compensable "principal" activities include those closely related activities indispensable to a principal activity's performance, but find that the required security screenings here were not "integral and indispensable." An activity is indispensable only when an employee could not dispense with it without impairing his ability to perform the principal activity safely and effectively, such as a battery plant worker donning protective gear in Steiner v. Mitchell or a butcher sharpening knives in Mitchell v. King Packing Co. The security screenings in this case, however, could be skipped altogether without the safety or effectiveness of the employees' principal activities being substantially impaired. Furthermore, the screenings were not themselves "principal activities" the employees were employed to perform. They are part of the ingress and egress process, akin to checking in and out, which the Portal-to-Portal Act and Department of Labor regulations classify as preliminary or postliminary activities, distinguishing them from actual "work of consequence." The Department of Labor's consistent interpretation regarding similar security screenings also warrants deference.
Analysis:
This ruling significantly narrows the scope of compensable time under the FLSA, particularly for activities occurring before or after the core productive work. It reinforces the Portal-to-Portal Act's intent to limit employer liability for such "ancillary" activities by strictly defining the "integral and indispensable" test as tied to the actual performance of productive work, not merely employer requirement or benefit. This precedent will likely reduce litigation against employers for activities like security checks or waiting times that are not directly related to the core job function, shifting the onus for such compensation to collective bargaining or contractual agreements.
