9-0 Supreme Court: Security Screening Time Not Compensable Under FLSA

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision and found that waiting for and passing through security screening is neither employees' principal activity nor integral and indispensable to their duties.

On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 9-0 decision holding that employees' time spent waiting for and undergoing security screening after their shifts have ended is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision—and consistent with the Department of Labor's position and decisions from the Second and Eleventh Circuits—the Court held that security screening was neither a "principal activity" that the workers were employed to perform nor "integral and indispensable" to their principal activities. In so holding, the Court for the first time defined what it means for a preliminary or postliminary activity to be "integral and indispensable." Invoking the "ordinary sense" of those words, the Court held that for such activities to be compensable, they must be "an intrinsic element" of the "principal activities that an employee is employed to perform" and "one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities."1

This decision should effectively end the onslaught of similar claims filed against a variety of companies across the United States that assert causes of action under the FLSA relating to security screening and bag checks, although claims under some states' laws could potentially remain. Furthermore, the Court's sweeping declaration that pre- or postliminary activities are compensable only if they are an "intrinsic element" of an employee's principal job duties is likely to have a broad impact on litigation involving other types of pre- or postliminary activities.

Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk

Plaintiffs Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro worked for Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. (Integrity), which provides warehouse staffing at various Amazon.com (Amazon) fulfillment centers throughout the United States. The plaintiffs had worked as Integrity employees at Amazon fulfillment centers in Nevada. Their responsibilities were to retrieve products from shelves and package them for delivery to Amazon customers.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were required to undergo antitheft security screening after clocking out from their shifts (both before taking their lunch breaks and before leaving at the end of the...