The plaintiffs brought a claim for off-the-clock work, claiming the screenings were part of the compensable work day in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also brought state law claims under Nevada law. They claimed that they had to walk to the lunch room to punch out for meals, and had to undergo security screenings after lunch before returning to work. These took only 5 minutes.
The court of appeals held that (based on the plaintiffs' allegations in the complaint) waiting for security could be compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act:
Here, Busk and Castro have alleged that Integrity requires the security screenings, which must be conducted at work. They also allege that the screenings are intended to prevent employee theft – a plausible allegation since the employees apparently pass through the clearances only on their way out of work, not when they enter. As alleged, the security clearances are necessary to employees’ primary work as warehouse employees and done for Integrity’s benefit. Assuming, as we must, that these allegations are true, the plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief.
***
Integrity allegedly requires the screening to prevent employee theft, a concern that stems from the nature of the employees’ work (specifically, their access to merchandise).
As for the claims that the plaintiffs were delayed from enjoying their unpaid meal period, the court of appeals was not convinced:
Based on this case, employers should consider whether "bag checks" and other security screening at the end of the shift should paid time (at least in the Ninth Circuit), unless it happens quickly enough to be "de minimis."
Of interest to litigators, the Court of Appeals decided that a federal "opt in" class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act could proceed simultaneously with a state-law based "opt out" class action.
Busk and Castro alleged they were not “completely relieved from duty” because by placing the time clocks far from the lunchroom, Integrity forced upon them the “duty to walk to the lunch room in order to eat lunch.” But the district court correctly held that walking to the lunchroom is not a work duty. Walking to the lunchroom is not necessary to the plaintiffs’ principal work as warehouse employees. Moreover, though the Portal-to-Portal Act does not clearly preclude compensation for walking to the lunchroom, as it only expressly applies to walking before the workday starts* * *
Finally, the first amended complaint alleges that employees had to pass through a security clearance on their way to the lunchroom. Assuming that the time passing through the security clearance on the way to lunch constitutes compensable work, the time alleged in this case is de minimis. See Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057, 1062–64 (9th Cir. 1984) (discussing de minimis exception). As alleged in the first amended complaint, the walk to and from the cafeteria takes “approximately five minutes” each way, though employees pass through security only on their way to the cafeteria, not on the return trip. The relatively minimal time expended on the clearance in this context differs from the 25-minute delay alleged for employees passing through security at day’s end. Therefore, the district court correctlydismissed this claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Based on this case, employers should consider whether "bag checks" and other security screening at the end of the shift should paid time (at least in the Ninth Circuit), unless it happens quickly enough to be "de minimis."
Of interest to litigators, the Court of Appeals decided that a federal "opt in" class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act could proceed simultaneously with a state-law based "opt out" class action.
This case is Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions and the opinion is here.
