A quick post to relay the results of a California court ruling.
The California Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Apple employees allowing them to be paid for after shift security searches. Apple requires employees of their product stores to be searched after their shift, checking for stolen company products. Employees filed a class action suit claiming that they should be compensated for the time required to complete the searches. Failure to comply with the search policy can lead to being fired.
A federal district court had earlier ruled in favor of Apple. Stating that the employees had to prove that they were being restrained from leaving. The case then went to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court, who returned the case to state court for an interpretation of state law regarding compensation. The California Supreme ruled in favor of employees and the case now returns to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court. The ruling, as of now, does not affect other states as it was not a federal court decision. However, once the U.S. Circuit Court considers California's Supreme Court decision it may rule in favor of employees. Compensation for requirements after an employee is "off duty" may be interpreted differently and cause a ripple effect through the U.S. regarding employee pay and overtime.
This is not the first time a California ruling has affected employee compensation. In 2018, The California Supreme Ruled that employers must pay employees for "off the clock" activities such as locking up, setting alarms, and other administrative duties. There is a federal rule called the de minimis rule that says that employees can be required to work small amounts of time, less than ten minutes say, that would be difficult to track administratively. However, California courts ruled that the federal rule had not been adopted under California wage laws and, therefore, did not apply.
De minimis Rule
The "de minimis" rule came from the Supreme Court in 1946, stating that employers, when considering amount of time worked, may disregard time worked over shift when it amounted to seconds or minutes. The U.S. Department of Labor adopted a similar rule under 29 C.F.R. § 785.47, which states, insubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours may be disregarded.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 785.11, if an “employer knows or has reason to believe that the work is being performed, he must count the time as hours worked.” The Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 251-62, amended the FLSA and relieves employers of the obligation to compensate an employee for activities such as: traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity and activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to the principal activity, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday or subsequent to the time on any particular workday.
This is a just a small sampling of the laws and precedents that would go into any court’s decision on compensation of employees after hours. There have been too many cases to cite here regarding compensation beyond work hours. Cases involving employee’s loading/unloading/resupplying company vehicles at home, answering phone calls, emails and texts. If California is the test, then the trend would lean towards the employee.
Small business owners have to take this into consideration as they apply policy. Whether for breaks, meal times, or after work communications, how employers pay employees may be changing.
