Holomua Consulting Group, LLC
info@holomuaconsulting.com
(808) 369-1471
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
    • SBA 8(a) Program Services
    • DBE Program
  • News
  • Contact
    • Initial Consultations
  • Our Blog
  • Pilot Course
  • Student Portal

​The Small Business Blog

TIPS * UPDATES * INDUSTRY NEWS

Follow Up:  Time Spent Going Through Security Screening is Noncompensable Time for FLSA Purposes

12/10/2014

0 Comments

 
In our prior blog post titled Compensable Time:  Do Employers Have To Pay Employees For Time Spent Going Through Security, we reported that the United States Supreme Court had just heard oral arguments in the case of Busk v. Integrity Solutions, Inc., a Ninth Circuit case that presented the question of whether employers are required to compensate employees for the time spent going through security (in Busk, the security screenings were post-shift screenings that all employees were required to complete before leaving the premises). Yesterday, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), time spent by employees waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable.
In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which was enacted to limit overly broad interpretation of the FLSA.  Specifically, the Act exempts employers from liability under FLSA for claims based on "activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to" the performance of the principal activities the employee is employed to perform.  

The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's position that the relevant issue is whether the particular activity is required by the employer.  Rather, and in accordance with the Portal-to-Portal Act, the correct analysis focuses on whether the activity at issue is a "principal activity" which the employee is employed to perform. In making this determination, the following are relevant principles the court pointed out:   
  • The term "principal activity" includes all activities which are an integral and dispensable part of the principal activity
  • "An activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities an employee is employed to perform if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities"

Here, the Court found the security screenings noncompensable because:  
  1. The screenings were not the principal activities for which the employees were employed (they were employed to retrieve products from warehouses and to package them for shipment); 
  2. The screenings were not "integral and indispensable" to the employees' duties (the screenings were not an intrinsic element of retrieving the products from the warehouse and/or packaging for shipment); and
  3. The employer could have eliminated the screenings without impairing the employees' ability to perform their job duties.

In a time when the obligations and requirements imposed on employers seem to increase daily, this decision is a significant victory for employers.  A copy of the Supreme Court's ruling can be found
Here.  
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.


    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Archives

    May 2020
    April 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014


    Categories

    All
    8(a) BD Program
    Affiliation
    Affirmative Action
    Business Development
    Compensation
    Conferences
    Contractor Compliance
    DBE
    DFARS
    Employment
    Events
    FAR
    Federal Contracting
    FLSA
    GAO Protest
    General Business Tips
    GovCon Tips
    Government Contractor Compliance
    HR Compliance
    HUBZone
    Joint Ventures
    Marketing
    Market Research
    Native Hawaiian Issues
    NHO
    OFCCP
    Ostensible Subcontractor Rule
    SBA OHA Decisions
    SBA Regulations
    SBIR
    SDVOSB
    Size Protests
    Small Biz Tools
    Small Business Compliance
    Small Business Programs
    Subcontracting
    WOSB

CONTACT US

  • (808) 369-1471
  • info@holomuaconsulting.com
  • P.O. Box 29735, Honolulu 96820

    Newsletter, alerts & updates, promotions

Subscribe
Back to top
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
    • SBA 8(a) Program Services
    • DBE Program
  • News
  • Contact
    • Initial Consultations
  • Our Blog
  • Pilot Course
  • Student Portal
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
© 2014 Holomua Consulting Group, LLC.  All Rights Reserved.