Term: 2014
Docket: 13-433
Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk
- Pro
13-433 INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS V. BUSK DECISION BELOW: 713 F.3d 525 CERT. GRANTED 3/3/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: Respondents are warehouse workers who seek back pay, overtime, and double damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for time spent in security screenings after the end of their work shifts. Relying on an unbroken line of authority from other jurisdictions, the district court dismissed Respondents' claims because security screenings are quintessential "preliminary" or "postliminary" activities that are non-compensable under the FLSA pursuant to the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that time spent in security screenings was compensable under the FLSA because it was "necessary to [Respondents'] primary work as warehouse employees." That holding squarely conflicts with decisions from the Second and Eleventh Circuits holding that time spent in security screenings is not subject to the FLSA because it is not "integral and indispensable" to employees' principal job activities. The question presented is whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-16892
The U.S. Supreme Court case Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk in 2014 revolved around the issue of whether or not employees should be compensated for time spent undergoing security screenings after their shifts ended. The plaintiffs, Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, were former hourly workers at Amazon.com warehouses managed by Integrity Staffing Solutions who argued that they should have been paid for this additional time as it was a necessary part of their job to prevent theft. However, the court unanimously ruled in favor of Integrity Staffing Solutions stating that these post-shift activities were non-compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because they weren't integral and indispensable parts of the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform.
In the dissenting opinion for Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, Justice Sotomayor argued that the post-shift security screenings were integral and indispensable to employees' principal activities and should therefore be compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). She reasoned that these screenings were necessary for workers to complete their tasks and maintain a safe working environment. Furthermore, she contended that if an employer requires an activity as part of its operations or production process then it is not reasonable to consider such activity as non-compensable 'postliminary'. The majority's interpretation of FLSA was seen by her as too narrow which could potentially allow employers to evade their obligation towards fair compensation by simply labeling certain work-related activities as 'preliminary' or 'postliminary'.
