They Also Serve Who Only Stand and Wait – At No Extra Charge

courthouse-hires-rgb[2]Last month, this blog discussed a case pending at the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether employees who were required to pass through a security clearance at the beginning and end of their shifts could claim that the time spent waiting in line for clearance should be considered paid time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had decided that this waiting time should be paid time, although our prior blog article modestly suggested that the reasoning of the Court of Appeals seemed somewhat flawed.

The Court of Appeals has now been reversed (and our blog article affirmed) by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court.  The Court held that the FLSA had been amended in 1947 by the Portal to Portal Act to distinguish between principal and indispensable activities of the job, and incidental time spent at the beginning or end of the workday. Under the amended FLSA, employers must treat the principal activities as paid time, but not the preliminary or “postliminary” activity.

The Supreme Court then found that the check-in and check-out procedures at issue in the Busk case were not principal activities of the job.  By focusing on the fact that the employer required the security clearance, the Court of Appeals misinterpreted the statute; if the clearance were not required by the employer, the employees would not have to wait in line in the first place.  But even preliminary waiting time imposed by the employer is not compensable under the FLSA if it is not essential to the performance of the job.

As the prior article discussed, there are some preliminary activities, such as putting on protective clothing, which are indispensable because otherwise the job could not be properly performed, and these activities are compensable.  But time spent in a simple security check, even if required by the employer to control pilfering, is not paid time.

Posted in Supreme Court

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Education Law Notes

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page