Specifically, the court noted that the prevention of employee theft-a concern specific to the employees’ warehouse work duties-motivated the security clearances, thereby benefiting Integrity.Īfter the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing, Integrity appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, holding that the employees stated a plausible claim for relief because the security clearances were for Integrity’s benefit and necessary for the employees’ job performance. The employees appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Because of the district court’s categorization of the security clearances as “postliminary,” the district court ruled that the time employees spent in the security clearances was non-compensable. The Portal-to-Portal Act exempts certain activities that are “preliminary” or “postliminary” to an employee’s “principal activity” from FLSA-required compensation. Relying on cases from the Second and Eleventh Circuit, the district court ruled that the security clearances at issue were “postliminary” activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the employees’ FLSA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that the employees failed to state a claim upon which the court could grant relief. As relief, the employees sought back pay, overtime, and double damages. Specifically, the employees allege that Integrity mandated that employees undergo security clearances at the end of each shift in order to prevent theft, yet failed to compensate its employees for time spent in the clearances The clearances lasted “up to 25 minutes” and required employees to “remove their wallets, keys and belts” in order to pass through metal detectors. In 2010, Busk and Castro sued Integrity on behalf of a putative class of the company’s employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (“Portal to Portal Act”). (“Integrity”) is a corporation that “provides warehouse space and staffing to clients such as .” Plaintiffs Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro worked as hourly employees at Integrity’s warehouses in Las Vegas and Fernley, Nevada Their duties included “filling orders placed by customers.” This decision will affect the range of activities that employers can require employees to perform with and without compensation. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will reflect its view on the correct balance between the interest of employers in preventing employee theft, and the interest of employees in obtaining compensation for time spent undergoing screenings related to theft prevention or similar activities.
The Supreme Court will address whether under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, employers must compensate employees for post-shift security screenings. Integrity claims that it is immune from liability under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which provides that employers are not required to compensate for activities that are postliminary to an employee’s primary work activities. Specifically, the employees alleged that Integrity required post-shift security screenings lasting up to 25 minutes, yet failed to compensate their employees for the time spent undergoing the screenings. (“Integrity”), sued Integrity alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.
0 kommentar(er)
