Blogs

Supreme Court Delivers A Blow To Workers In Integrity Staffing Case

By Clark Taylor posted 12-22-2014 06:04 PM

  

By Clark L. Taylor

Paul H. Tobias Attorney Fellow

The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy

 

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the United States Supreme Court held that warehouse workers filling amazon.com orders, do not have to be paid for time spent waiting for and passing through a rigorous security screening prior to exiting the workplace. In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the Court decided that the employees’ time was not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”). Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, which Justice Elena Kagan joined, to expound on her understanding of the standards applied by the Court.  The result is not entirely surprising given that the Obama administration filed an amicus brief supporting Integrity Staffing arguing that the time was not compensable. The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of employers in two recently decided FLSA cases in June 2012 and January 2014. See Sandifer v. U.S. Steel, 134 S.Ct. 870 (2014); Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham, 132 S.Ct. 2156 (2012). The Integrity Staffing decision, which employers are hailing as a “clear victory,” comes at the expense of the workers who had to wait roughly 25 minutes each day to pass through security checkpoints after the end of their shifts.

Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro brought the case as a collective action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees. Busk and Castro were employed by Integrity Staffing at amazon.com “fulfillment centers” where items purchased through Amazon’s website were packaged and shipped. In an effort to prevent and deter theft, the warehouse workers were required to undergo a thorough screening in which they were compelled to remove items such as wallets, keys, and belts and pass through metal detectors. The employees alleged that the time spent passing through security could have been drastically reduced through either a staggering of shifts or adding more security screeners. Given that this time was spent to prevent employee theft, Busk and Castro argued that the screenings were conducted solely for the benefit of the employers and their customers.

The district court held that the time was not compensable under the FLSA because it was not integral to the performance of the employees’ principal duties and dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding the post-shift activities sufficiently indispensable because they were necessary to the principal work performed and for the benefit of the employer. Since the screenings were conducted at the insistence of the employer to prevent employee theft, the Ninth Circuit held that they were integral and done for Integrity Staffing’s benefit.

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the security screenings were postliminary under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 and thus not compensable under the FLSA. Justice Thomas explained that time spent passing through these screenings was not a compensable postliminary activity because Integrity Staffing “did not employ its workers to undergo security screenings, but to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package those products for shipment to Amazon customers.” He further elucidated that “[t]he screenings were not an intrinsic element of retrieving products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment.” Justice Thomas stated that the Ninth Circuit erred by focusing on whether a task is required, rather than whether the task is one that the employee is employed to perform.

In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor elaborated that the Portal-to-Portal Act distinguishes between activities that are part of the ingress and egress process and those that are actual work of consequence. Justice Sotomayor explained that because the screening activities are more accurately grouped with the former, they are not compensable under the FLSA. This was consistent with the position taken by the Solicitor General and Department of Labor in the government’s amicus brief, which argued that there is “no distinction between the searches conducted for the safety of the employees and those conducted for the purpose of preventing theft….” 

The degree to which this precedent will impact workers is unsettled as of yet. Eric Schnapper, professor at the University of Washington School of Law, who represented the workers at the Supreme Court, said “I think businesses will argue it will apply to completely dissimilar facts. Businesses have been trying to get people to work without paying them since the days of the Egyptians.” Paul W. Mollica, Of Counsel at Outten & Golden LLP and the author of an amicus curiae brief filed by the National Employment Lawyers Association on behalf of the workers, was more positive and took a different view, stating that “[f]ortunately I don’t see this case having wide implications beyond the facts of the case.” Joshua M. Buck, at the Thierman Law Firm, who represented the workers throughout the litigation, summed up what he believes is indicative of a troubling trend, noting “there seems to be a disconnect with the powers that be that make and interpret the laws and what working people need in today’s age.”

Finally, a silver lining may be found in the fact that Integrity Staffing altered its screening procedures while the case was pending at the Supreme Court, so that it now takes workers approximately five, rather than 25, minutes to clear the security screening.  While other employers are under no legal obligation to make similar concessions, this change demonstrates that is it possible for employers, when motivated, to put in place screening procedures that both meet their business needs and do not burden workers.

*********************

Clark L. Taylor is The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy’s Paul H. Tobias Attorney Fellow.  In this capacity, Mr. Taylor focuses on protecting workers’ rights by ensuring meaningful access to the civil justice system. Mr. Taylor received his B.A. from the University of Maryland, College Park and his J.D. from the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law.  The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy (The Institute) is the related charitable and educational arm of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA).
0 comments
498 views

Permalink