Apple employees who attempted to file a class action lawsuit against the company over wages they say they lost while standing in bag-check lines for 10 to 15 minutes before and after their shifts got some bad news from a judge today. Citing a similar case involving Amazon warehouse workers, a district judge dismissed the Apple suit.
In the Amazon case, the Supreme Court ruled that because Amazon warehouse workers were not employed for the purpose of going through security checks, it was not actually part of the job they were being paid to do. Therefore, the court ruled, the employees could not bill the company for time spent standing in security lines.
Based on that ruling, the judge in the Apple suit determined that the case had to be dismissed.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
“In the Amazon case, the Supreme Court ruled that because Amazon warehouse workers were not employed for the purpose of going through security checks, it was not actually part of the job they were being paid to do. Therefore, the court ruled, the employees could not bill the company for time spent standing in security lines.”
Based on this explanation of the Amazon ruling, it sounds as though, if an employer were to require employees to go through two hour security checks before and after their shifts, they could do this without paying the employees for their time. It also sounds like, since the security checks are “not part of an employee’s job, they should not be required to participate, and that, if employees are fired for not participating in security checks, this would be grounds for lawsuits.
Based on the description of the Amazon ruling, if I were a plaintiff, I would want to appeal this ruling as long as it takes to obtain the correct decision.
The problem is once the Supreme Court has ruled there is nothing else you can do about it through the courts. If employees want it changed now, they would have to lean on congress to get them to pass a bill requiring employees to be paid for security checks if it is a mandatory aspect of their job.
Neiihn, have you not heard the Republicans control Congress? I have a better chance of hitting the lottery than a Republican congress passing a law favorable to employees.
This time is no different than a drivers commute to and from work. This isn’t their job. It’s how they get to and leave from it. If they want to work somewhere without bag checks and rush hour traffic for example, They are free to go work elsewhere.
Well it is different since it’s the employer doing the checks, where the employer has no input into how the employee commutes to work once they leave the campus. Personally I think it should be covered if the employer is adding significant times to an employees week (10 to 15 mins, twice a day over a year adds up), but I guess the courts see it differently. The better solution would be companies that take so long to perform these checks up the resources to get the times down so people can get in and out work more efficiently.
It is different because I can move close to my work and not have to commute long or I can move far away and have to deal with a long commute. When it comes to commuting the worker decides how long their commute is. In this case the worker has no say as to whether they have to wait 15 minutes in a line required by the employer.
I think the ruling is a clear winner for employees who can now simply walk out. If they are fired for leaving without being checked, the employees can sue for unlawful detention. That would then force Amazon and Apple to have to pay their employees to stand in line for security checks. The law is a whacky thing, but sometimes you have to go in circles to be guaranteed civil rights.
Yup. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to fully understand the merit of what’s being said.
That’s bull. So if a boss asks anyone to do anything that’s not in our job description, we shouldn’t get paid for it?
Again the Supreme Court shows that it doesn’t have what I call common sense. By the Supreme Court’s logic it seems that an employer could force an assembly worker to do janitorial services for free since they didn’t hire them to do to that. If workers are forced to do something, then workers should be paid for it.
The supreme court is bought and sold. “Justice” Clarence Thomas allows his wife to spend her time accepting bribes from lobbyists, while he rules on the cases of vital interest to same lobbyists and their clients.
If he had any honor, he’d recuse himself from such cases but does not. And he’s hardly the only one not above being bribed.
Why the checks to begin with? Employee theft of stock and intellectual property maybe. Violence in the work place. Why blame a corp for protecting their interest. I’m sure most of those people are glad to have jobs.
You US guys litigate all too often for dubious reasons, and often for trivial reasons. If you don’t like aspects of your job, then go to a better employer.
Its not about that, its about fighting for and maintaining your rights.
Here in the EU, we probably have our workers unions to do such things for us, whereas in the US, you’re more likely to be completely on your own and so the only way to fight for rights is through the courts.
Ultimately, my thoughts lead me to this conclusion.
In order to maintain my employment, am I required to take part in this workplace activity ? Yes….pay me. No….don’t.
I don’t find this much different, than someone saying, “Hey, I need you to work 8 hours today, but I can only pay you for 4. If you don’t like this, you can quit.”
If the workplace mandates an daily activity that is a condition of employment, the ethical and hopefully one day legal thing to do, pay the employee.
Seems this is a case of where do you draw the line. If I have to punch in to start being on the books, I don’t get paid for the time it takes to punch in. That time is usually trivial, but if I come in, have to walk to one area of a building to punch in, and then to my workspace, it could be several minutes more than just going to my work area.
Or differently, am I paid from the time I enter the door at work, (or work property, for that matter), or when I am at my desk/station/whatever?
If I punch in, and then go get a coffee, have a chat, and make it too my workspace, I am paid for that. (This is all about hourly employees, not salaried.)
Most places, you are expected to show up before your shift, and be ready to go at as your shirt starts. And there are company policies and laws about when you can be docked for being late, (such as punching in at 9:03 for a 9:00 shift). You can always be fired if you make it a habit.
I don’t think most people have an issue with being a few minutes early, or it taking some time to leave after work. You don’t get paid after punching out, the walk to your car, leaving the parking lot. Or usually, being ready to go at 8:55. Or passing though a security booth going into the parking lot. But those times are usually trivial. When it starts to be a quarter hour, I have to wonder. And as mentioned, to make it more extreme, what if it was an hour or two?
I’m a union guy, and don’t want companies taking advantage of their workers, but this is a little but of a grey area for me.