Hourly warehouse workers had to wait as much as 25 minutes to be searched at the end of each shift during a mandatory security clearance, which involved removing their wallets, keys, and belts and passing through metal detectors. They said they should be compensated for that time.

What happened. “Leslie” and “Brooke” used to work as hourly employees for Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., which provides warehouse space and staffing to clients, such as Amazon.com. Leslie worked in Integrity’s Las Vegas warehouse, and Brooke worked in its Fernley, Nevada, warehouse.

They maintained that the security clearance was “necessary to the employer’s task of minimizing ‘shrinkage’ or loss of product from warehouse theft.” They sued Integrity on behalf of workers at both warehouses, alleging the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nevada labor laws by not compensating them for the time they spent passing through the security clearance.

The workers also argued that they should be paid for their entire 30-minute lunch break, since they spent about 10 minutes “walking to and from the cafeteria and/or undergoing [other] security clearances,” and managers frequently reminded them during their breaks to finish their meals quickly and return to work on time.

The district court dismissed the claims, saying the time spent clearing security was not compensable under the FLSA, and the workers did not perform work-related duties during their lunch breaks. Leslie and Brooke appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

What the court said. In general, time spent on activities that are “preliminary” or “postliminary” to an employee’s “principal activity or activities” are not compensable under federal law, unless the activities are “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s principal activities.

Since the security clearances at the end of workers’ shifts are both “necessary to the principal work performed” and “done for the benefit of the employer,” the court reversed the dismissal of those claims. However, it affirmed the dismissal of the federal claim for shortened lunch periods and instructed the district court to consider whether the lunch periods are compensable under state law, as the workers argued on appeal. Busk, et al. v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir., No. 11-16892 (4/12/13).

Point to remember: Under certain circumstances, employers might have to compensate employees for time spent in security clearances and/or donning and doffing certain protective work gear.