{"id":696,"date":"2014-12-09T22:12:42","date_gmt":"2014-12-09T22:12:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/?p=696"},"modified":"2014-12-09T22:12:42","modified_gmt":"2014-12-09T22:12:42","slug":"supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States found in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk that warehouse employees were not entitled to compensation under the FLSA for the 25 minutes they spent at work each day waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings. The case was initially brought before a district court, where it was dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit held that the post-shift security screenings that were previously found to be non-compensable postliminary activities were actually integral and indispensible to the employee\u2019s principal activities since they were performed for the employer\u2019s benefit, and were therefore compensable. The Supreme Court of the United States, on review, reached the opposite conclusion and held that security screenings were not integral and indispensible to the employee\u2019s principal activities.<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>The Supreme Court looked at whether security screenings should be considered \u201cprincipal activities\u201d, as provided by the Portal to Portal act. The Portal to Portal act states that employers are not required to compensate their employees under the FLSA for non-principal activities. Here, the court defined principal activities as those that are an integral and indispensible part of the employee\u2019s activities. The court found that security screenings were not an integral part of an employee\u2019s activities when considering the employee\u2019s job duties. Specifically, the court stated that the warehouse employees were employed to retrieve and move products from shelves and prepare them for delivery, not to receive security screenings. The court further held that the 9th Circuit\u2019s test, which looked at whether the activity was required by the employer, was too sweeping and would violate the intentions behind the Portal to Portal act.<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>The Employment Lawyers at Fitapelli &amp; Schaffer frequently represent employees who are denied full compensation for their labor. Please contact us at (212) 300-0375 to schedule a free consultation to further discuss your rights. For more information, please visit our website at www.fslawfirm.com.<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States found in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk that warehouse employees were not entitled to compensation under the FLSA for the 25 minutes they spent at work each day waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings. The case was initially brought before a district court, where it was dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1,22,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-employment-law","category-flsa-2","category-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid  - New York Employment Lawyer<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid  - New York Employment Lawyer\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States found in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk that warehouse employees were not entitled to compensation under the FLSA for the 25 minutes they spent at work each day waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings. The case was initially brought before a district court, where it was dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"New York Employment Lawyer\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FSLawFirm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-12-09T22:12:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/FSLaw_Logo_Blue_FB.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"bschaffer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"bschaffer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"bschaffer\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/749a268f980a6cee82fa2f713ef54852\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-12-09T22:12:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/\"},\"wordCount\":347,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Employment Law\",\"FLSA\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid - New York Employment Lawyer\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-12-09T22:12:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"New York Employment Lawyer\",\"description\":\"New York City Employment Law News\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/fitapelli-schaffer-llp.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/fitapelli-schaffer-llp.png\",\"width\":330,\"height\":210,\"caption\":\"Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FSLawFirm\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/wagelawyer\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/fitapelliandschaffer\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/bssnyls\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/749a268f980a6cee82fa2f713ef54852\",\"name\":\"bschaffer\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca8f5f199884a5a6f92f9c562b13c779361bb6133d0666af67111ea485636d73?s=96&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca8f5f199884a5a6f92f9c562b13c779361bb6133d0666af67111ea485636d73?s=96&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca8f5f199884a5a6f92f9c562b13c779361bb6133d0666af67111ea485636d73?s=96&r=g\",\"caption\":\"bschaffer\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/author\/bschaffer\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid  - New York Employment Lawyer","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid  - New York Employment Lawyer","og_description":"On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States found in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk that warehouse employees were not entitled to compensation under the FLSA for the 25 minutes they spent at work each day waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings. The case was initially brought before a district court, where it was dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/","og_site_name":"New York Employment Lawyer","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FSLawFirm","article_published_time":"2014-12-09T22:12:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":300,"url":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/FSLaw_Logo_Blue_FB.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"bschaffer","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"bschaffer","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/"},"author":{"name":"bschaffer","@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/749a268f980a6cee82fa2f713ef54852"},"headline":"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid","datePublished":"2014-12-09T22:12:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/"},"wordCount":347,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Employment Law","FLSA","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/","url":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/","name":"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid - New York Employment Lawyer","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-12-09T22:12:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/supreme-court-decides-employee-security-screenings-can-unpaid\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Decides Employee Security Screenings Can Be Unpaid"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/","name":"New York Employment Lawyer","description":"New York City Employment Law News","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP","url":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/fitapelli-schaffer-llp.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/fitapelli-schaffer-llp.png","width":330,"height":210,"caption":"Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FSLawFirm","https:\/\/x.com\/wagelawyer","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/fitapelliandschaffer\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/bssnyls\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/749a268f980a6cee82fa2f713ef54852","name":"bschaffer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca8f5f199884a5a6f92f9c562b13c779361bb6133d0666af67111ea485636d73?s=96&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca8f5f199884a5a6f92f9c562b13c779361bb6133d0666af67111ea485636d73?s=96&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca8f5f199884a5a6f92f9c562b13c779361bb6133d0666af67111ea485636d73?s=96&r=g","caption":"bschaffer"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/author\/bschaffer\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=696"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/696\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":697,"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/696\/revisions\/697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fslawfirm.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}