California employers who require employees to pass through a security checkpoint or swipe a security badge before exiting their worksites but after clocking out could potentially face significant liability for violating California’s wage and hour laws.
On Monday, March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court doubled down on its position that California employers are required to pay employees for time related to security checks. In Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, the California Supreme Court addressed two separate questions related to security checks:[1]
- Are employees entitled to compensation for time spent in their personal vehicles if they are required to undergo “exit procedures” to leave the employer’s premises?
- Is the time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between a security gate and the employee parking lot, compensable work time when the employee is “subject to certain rules”?
The answer to both questions was a resounding yes.
In Huerta, the plaintiff-employees worked for a company that had been contracted to provide construction and installation services for a solar power facility located on a large, privately owned plot of land in both Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. The land was home to endangered wildlife, so employees were required to abide by a strict 20-mile-per-hour speed limit, stay on the road enroute to the facility, and not play excessively loud music. These requirements were established by California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the employer was required to enforce them in order to conduct its business. In order to comply with these requirements, and to ensure employee safety and deter theft, there was a single designated security access point located at the perimeter of the employer’s lot, several miles from the actual worksite. Employees were required to pass through this singular security point before reaching the employee parking lot and work facility. At the guard shack, security guards would match the driver’s identification to the person entering or exiting the lot and occasionally peer into the cabins or truck beds of employees’ vehicles. The security check area was a 10-to-20-minute drive from the employee parking lot.
The Court held that the time an employee spends on his employer’s premises waiting in his personal vehicle to scan an identification badge and have a security guard “peer” into his vehicle is compensable hours worked. In support, the Court cited its prior holding in Frelkin v. Apple, 8 Cal.5th 1038 (2020). There the California Supreme Court held that time spent undergoing on-premises bag checks at the end of an employee’s shift was compensable work time. Id. at 1047-48. The Court reasoned that employees were subject to the control of the employer during these bag checks and that this exercise of “control” is the cornerstone of the analysis when determining whether an employee has engaged in compensable work time. The Court conceded that the bag checks in Frelkin were objectively more intrusive and controlling than the vehicle spot checks and badge swipes in Huerta, but still held that the time spent in a personal vehicle waiting to leave the facility was compensable work time.
The Court also set forth a test to determine whether the travel time between the security check point and the employee parking lot constituted compensable “employer mandated travel.” Employer mandated travel is travel that occurs after “the first location where the employee’s presence is required by the employer.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11160, subd. 5(A). Relying on the reasoning set forth in Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (2000), the Court ultimately set forth a new test to determine whether travel time between two locations can be considered “mandated” travel time:
An employee’s presence at a location is “required by the employer” if the employee is required to report to a location for “an employment-related reason other than the practical necessity of reaching the worksite.”
The Court explained that this would apply to situations where an employee’s presence at an initial location is required to pick up work supplies, receive work orders or perform work before traveling to a second job site. Utilizing this new framework, the Court was unable to decide whether employees’ travel time in Huerta was “employer mandated,” but instructed the Ninth Circuit on how this question should be analyzed.
In sum, employers that utilize any sort of security checkpoints should prioritize a review of their security and timekeeping policies to make sure that they do not inadvertently run afoul of California’s ever-changing legal landscape. Employers should, and in many cases must, provide safe and secure facilities for their workforce.
[1] The Court in Huerta also addressed an issued related to on-premises meal breaks for employees who are covered by collective bargaining agreements. This aspect of the opinion is relatively narrow and only affects businesses with a unionized workforce. However, any such businesses should be aware that mandated on-premises meal breaks may be considered compensable time, even if the applicable collective bargaining agreement contains bargained-for provisions that state that on-premises meal breaks are to be unpaid.
[View source.]
