Share this article:

Polsinelli - Labor and Employment


December 2014


Unanimous Supreme Court: Time Spent Awaiting and Undergoing Security Checks Not Compensable







For more information about this alert, please contact:


James J. Swartz, Jr.




Amy M. Palesch





To view a full list of our Labor and Employment Professionals, click here.


To learn more about our Labor and Employment practice, click here.


View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  


LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Inside Law Podcast Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook.



Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously held that time spent by hourly warehouse workers waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before leaving the warehouse is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk.

The Court explained that the security screenings at issue (during which the employees remove their wallets, keys, and belts and then pass through metal detectors) were non-compensable activities because a screening is neither a principal activity the employees were employed to perform, nor "integral and indispensable" to the employees' principal activities. Rather, the employees' principal activities are the retrieval of inventory from warehouse shelves and the packaging of those products for shipment. The Court determined that the security screening is not an intrinsic, essential element of the employees' retrieval and packaging duties, and even if the company were to omit security screenings, it would not prevent or impede the employees' ability to perform these principal activities.

The Supreme Court rejected the employees' argument that the time they spend waiting for and undergoing the security screenings (allegedly 25 minutes) is compensable because the employer could and should have reduced that time to a de minimis amount. The Supreme Court held that the fact that the employer might be able to reduce the time spent on security screenings has no bearing on whether security screenings are employees' principal activity or "integral and indispensable" to their principal activities.

Of particular interest to employers, the Court clearly stated that an activity does not become compensable simply because the activity benefits the employer or an employer requires its employees to perform that activity (in this case security checks). Rather, the Court explained that the proper focus is whether the activity is integral and indispensable to the employee's principal activity, and, thus, whether the activity is "tied to the productive work that the employee is employed to perform." The Court contrasted other examples of activities that it previously has held are compensable because they constitute an "intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities," such as time spent by a battery plant worker showering and donning or doffing protective gear, when (by the employer's own admission) the worker could not safely or effectively perform his principal activities in the plant without showering or changing clothes, and a meatpacking employee sharpening knives because dull knives would hamper production, cause waste, lead to accidents, and adversely affect the product. If these types of activities were eliminated, the employees could not effectively perform their principal activities.

Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk gives employers a bookend 2014 Supreme Court victory (matching Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., January 2014) in the wage and hour arena. Unlike Sandifer, which focused on the relatively narrow issue of collectively bargained exclusion of time spent donning and doffing clothes, yesterday's decision provides more broadly applicable guidance to employers regarding the circumstances in which pre- and post-work activities may be compensable.

For More Information

If you have questions about your workforce's pre- or post-work activities, or other wage-and-hour issues affecting your employees, please contact the authors or a Polsinelli employment lawyer.











Atlanta  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Edwardsville  Jefferson City  Kansas City  Los Angeles  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Springfield  Topeka  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington








real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is a first generation Am Law 100 firm serving corporations, institutions, entrepreneurs and individuals nationally. Our attorneys successfully build enduring client relationships by providing practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and with a passion for assisting General Counsel and CEOs in achieving their objectives. Polsinelli is ranked 18th in number of U.S. partners* and has more than 740 attorneys in 19 offices. Profiled by The American Lawyer and ranked as the fastest growing U.S. law firm over a six-year period**, the firm focuses on healthcare, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, energy and business litigation, and has depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* Law360, March 2014
** The American Lawyer 2013 and 2014 reports







Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2014 Polsinelli PC.

Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Polsinelli