Workers are not entitled to pay for security check time

On December 9, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously, in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk et al, that workers do not have to be paid for time they spend passing through security screenings.  Suit was brought by ex-workers at an Amazon.com warehouse against a staffing agency to be compensated for the time the workers spent waiting for and undergoing post-shift anti-theft screenings.  Justice Thomas wrote, “We hold that an activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform — and thus compensable under the FLSA — if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.”  The Court found that the employees’ time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing the staffing agency’s screenings did not meet these criteria, reversing the previous ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Authored by Sean W. Martin and Amanda E. Kelley of Carr Allison’s Chattanooga office

News

Miller and Muhonen Obtain Dismissal

Chancey Miller and Stephen Muhonen of our Chattanooga (TN) office succeeded in obtaining the dismissal of a significant security case for a retail client. In a case where a convenience store employee was assaulted while confronting a shoplifter, allegations were that the retailer failed to provide proper security which was an […]

Learn More

Sausaman Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment

Alison H. Sausaman of our Jacksonville (FL) office prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in federal court on behalf of a national convenience store chain. The court agreed that rain on an asphalt parking lot was not a dangerous condition and granted final judgment in our client’s favor.

Learn More

Baggett and Ingram Prevail on a Motion for Judgment

Evan Baggett and Josh Ingram of our Birmingham (AL) office recently prevailed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a complex tort case. After extensive briefing and oral arguments, the court granted their motion and dismissed all the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

Learn More