Employee Security Screening: The Supreme Court to Decide Who Pays
Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Courthouse Steps Teleforum
On October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., v. Busk. The case involves a dispute between Nevada warehouses and their employees. The warehouses fill orders for Amazon.com customers. At the conclusion of shifts, employees spend time being screened to make sure they haven’t stolen anything from the shelves or the bins, a company requirement before they leave for the day. The company refers to this process as “inventory control.” Employees claim that the time spent undergoing the screening is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, while the employer asserts that the screening procedure is analogous to the time employees spend clocking out on their way out the door, and is not compensable. Employers also assert that they must be able to protect their businesses with security measures without having to choose between security and compensating employees for their time going from point A to point B, which would raise operating costs.
Karen R. Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, attended the oral arguments, and she will offer her analysis of the facts of the case and the possible outcome.
- Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal Center
On October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., v. Busk. The case involves a dispute between Nevada warehouses and their employees. The warehouses fill orders for Amazon.com customers. At the conclusion of shifts, employees spend time being screened to make sure they haven’t stolen anything from the shelves or the bins, a company requirement before they leave for the day. The company refers to this process as “inventory control.” Employees claim that the time spent undergoing the screening is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, while the employer asserts that the screening procedure is analogous to the time employees spend clocking out on their way out the door, and is not compensable. Employers also assert that they must be able to protect their businesses with security measures without having to choose between security and compensating employees for their time going from point A to point B, which would raise operating costs.
Karen R. Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, attended the oral arguments, and she will offer her analysis of the facts of the case and the possible outcome.
- Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal Center
Call begins at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.