« Out of the Box | Main | 2 Things to Get the Most Out of Employee Recognition Programs »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I see this as one more example of "business creep" --- meaning that more and more decisions coming out of SCOTUS are pro-business.

My question is --- how long does this security check take --- 30 minutes? One hour? More? I can see where if there are hundreds of warehouse workers and only 10 security guards or whoever does the checks --- waiting time could be significant.
Do you have details on this?

And yes I agree that companies will likely jump on this decision and begin to pick apart the non-essential parts of jobs that they won't have to pay for.

Jacque: I found this http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/no-overtime-pay-for-after-work-security-check/ today, showing the length of the security check was "up to 25 minutes".

With the new liberal wing Justices appointed by the current Dem President, 1/3 of the SCOTUS is considered liberal, 1/3 conservative and 1/3 swing voters. Unanimous decisions among Justices with such widely varied leanings are rare and a matter of great interest. The LAST thing I would expect from such a polarized but increasingly liberal-oriented court is an expanded "pro-business" attitude.

The separate additional concurring opinion from the newest and arguably most liberal appointees is especially troubling. They are probably not suddenly turning conservatively pro-business! Might they perhaps be signaling Congress or POTUS to change the FLSA to expand rather than maintain its status quo limited coverage of work requiring pay? What else could this mean?

So employees can be detained against their will with no compensation.......... Hmmmmm.

Good observation, Mark. Isn't that a police power that used to be reserved to law enforcement only?

I'm also surprised by this decsion, but I think it is the right decision and should be applauded. I can only hope that this signals a move away from the "entitlement mentality" that has been so pervasive in American (and European) industry for too many generations.

JJ: Maybe. But being a professional skeptic, I worry that even the Supremes aren't immune to exercising sarcastic "malicious compliance" when they see a technically legal situation some would want changed. Meanwhile, what OTHER "nonessential" activities might workers be demanded to perform without pay?

I'm quite surprised it wasn't considered analogous to donning and doffing.

Excellent observation, Tony. Past SCOTUS rulings on "donning and doffing" have also been unanimous, it seems. It depends on the facts of the case.

When it was deemed integral to the principal work responsibility (like legally required safety/sanitation gear), it was compensable. "But the Portal-to-Portal Act creates an exception to the FLSA for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the principal activity of an employee, unless the activity is an integral or indispensable part of the principal activity."

That raises a question to me: If your job requires being fully dressed, why isn't dressing time counted towards hourly pay and overtime?

The comments to this entry are closed.