Employment Law Now IV-55 – Six Significant Developments to be On Your Radar
On July 21, 2021, answering a question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that time spent by employees waiting to undergo and undergoing mandatory...more
Employees must be paid for time spent waiting for, and undergoing, searches of their bags, packages and personal technology devices, the California Supreme Court ruled February 13, 2020, in Amanda Frlekin, et al. v Apple,...more
- The California Supreme Court held that time Apple employees spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory security inspections is compensable. - The decision rejects the holding by some lower courts that if employees could...more
California wage-hour law is tougher on employers than federal law. Last Thursday, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court unanimously held that employees must be paid for time spent in mandatory, onsite...more
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court just held that the time spent by employees waiting for and undergoing security checks of bags and other personal items is compensable time under California law, even when...more
Today, in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that time spent by non-exempt employees undergoing mandatory bag or other security checks is compensable work time under California law. The decision stands...more
The laws of Nevada and Arizona require employers to pay their workers for time spent going through security screenings at the end of their shifts, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati has ruled. ...more
Expansion is the lifeblood of a growing business. But with expansion comes a diverse landscape of state laws governing all aspects of the employment relationship. It is vital when entering new jurisdictions to understand the...more
This past year has brought major changes to the laws affecting wage and hour issues. The Department of Labor has been particularly active this year putting out its first Administrator’s Interpretation regarding independent...more
Dear Retail Clients and Friends, In 2014, employees across the United States filed dozens of lawsuits under both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or the Act) and state law alleging that they and the classes of...more
The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires that employees be paid for all work and receive overtime pay for work that is part of the employee’s “principal activities” beyond 40 hours a week. However, the FLSA also states...more
The United States Supreme Court issued an interesting decision last month on whether employees who are required to undergo security screening after their work was done should be paid for that time. The Supreme Court found in...more
The employer in this case, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., provides staffing to Amazon.com throughout the United States. Plaintiffs Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro worked as hourly employees retrieving and packaging products...more
U.S. Supreme Court: Security Screenings Not Compensable - Why it matters: In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule that the time spent by...more
In a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, a unanimous court held that time spent by employees in mandatory security checks after work is not compensable, unless the screenings are "integral and indispensable" to the principal...more
The United States Supreme Court recently held in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk et al. that time spent waiting for and undergoing post-shift security checks is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act...more
Waiting for and Undergoing Security Checks Not Compensable Time - The United States Supreme Court recently held in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk et al. that time spent waiting for and undergoing post-shift...more
In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether an employee is “working” when undergoing a security screening because he or she is required to do so by the employer. In a...more
In Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument recently in a class action case regarding whether employees assigned by their employer to work at an Amazon warehouse must be...more
In This Issue: - Supreme Court Rejects Security Screening Time Pay - NLRB Finalizes Union Election Rule - NLRB Reverses Employers’ Ability To Ban Employee Nonwork Email Use - EEOC Challenges Employer...more
Employers across the country are breathing a sigh of relief following the December 9, 2014 unanimous ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that time spent by warehouse workers waiting for and undergoing antitheft security...more
In a decision that will certainly benefit employers facing claims of pre-shift and post-shift off-the-clock work, on December 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that employees’ time spent waiting to...more
While helpful to some employers, Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk does not fundamentally change the law of compensable working time. On December 9, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that warehouse employees were not entitled to compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for time spent waiting to pass through anti-theft security screenings after their shifts...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that an employer was not required to pay its non-exempt employees for time spent waiting to go through security screenings at the end of the workday. In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc....more