Judge dismisses Apple employee lawsuit demanding compensation for time spent in security checks
In July of 2013, Apple was hit with a lawsuit from retail employees alleging that they were not being compensated for time spent taking part in security checkouts. As an illustrative example, imagine an employee decides to break for lunch at noon. Before doing so, said employee must undergo a security and bag check to ensure that no items are being whisked out of the store. Consequently, an employee who is off the clock at noon may not be able to leave the store until, say, 12:15.
The lawsuit sought backpay for affected employees and a change to Apple's protocol whereby employees would be compensated for time spent during security checks.
Now comes word via AppleInsider that the case was dismissed about one week ago on account of a similar case recently presented before the U.S. Supreme Court.
That case, INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. v. BUSK, centered on temp workers at Amazon who were not compensated for time spent going through security screenings at the end of their shifts. In that suit, workers at Amazon claimed that the security process could sometimes delay their departure by upwards of 30 minutes.
In a unanimous 9-0 decision handed down in early December, the Supreme Court ruled against the employees, pointing out that employers only need to pay employees for activities that encompass an "integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed."
For example, Justice Clarence Thomas referenced a case where employees at a battery plant were owed compensation for the time spent showering and changing clothes after a shift because removing clothes with toxic chemicals formed an "indispensable part" of their job. Similarly, Thomas noted how employees at a meatpacking plant are owed compensation for time spent sharpening dull knives.
With respect to Amazon, the Court ruled that security checks before departure are too far removed from the core job responsibilities of Amazon warehouse employees to warrant compensation.
The ruling reads in part:
The security screenings at issue here are noncompensable postliminary activities. To begin with, the screenings were not the "principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform." 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(1). 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.
The security screenings also were not "integral and indispensable" to the employees' duties as warehouse workers. As explained above, an activity is not integral and indispensable to an employee's principal activities unless it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform those activities. The screenings were not an intrinsic element of retrieving products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment. And Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees' ability to complete their work.
With that precedent fresh on the books, the lawsuit against Apple was summarily dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsop.
