Class Actions, Employment Litigation, U.S. Supreme Court

Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Gives FLSA Class Action Win to Employers Screening for Theft

lineEmployers continue to face an increasing number of lawsuits (including class and collective actions) claiming they violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) based on a wide variety of policies and conduct.  Recent federal statistics for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2014 show 8,126 FLSA cases had been filed by employees in 2014, up nearly 5% from the cases filed in 2013 and more than double the cases filed ten years prior.  Against this backdrop of unyielding employee litigation, Tuesday’s pro-employer decision issued by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk is another notable victory for employers.  Employee theft, particularly in retail, has been traced to the loss of billions of dollars annually.  Employers now can have confidence that they can screen employees for theft without having to fork over additional pay.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had decided that the time spent by warehouse employees to undergo mandatory theft screening at the end of work shifts was paid time because the employer (an agency that staffed workers to fill customer orders) required the screening for its own benefit.  Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, the Supreme Court found the fact that the security screening was required and only benefitted the employer was not enough to require employers to pay employees for the time.  The Supreme Court stressed that the Ninth Circuit’s view would negate the very purpose of the federal statute, known as the Portal-to-Portal Act, that excludes such preliminary and postliminary activities from compensation under the FLSA.  The determining factor is whether the activity in question is “integral and indispensable to” the “principal activities” of the “productive work” that the employee was hired to perform.  The Supreme Court explained that this means “it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.” The High Court’s decision in Busk makes clear that, in the usual case, standing in line for security screening as part of an employer’s effort to thwart employee theft will not be considered one of those indispensable activities. In most cases, as in this one, a company would be able to eliminate the theft screening entirely without encroaching on their employee’s ability to do their work.

Tony Lathrop

About Tony Lathrop

Tony Lathrop brings experience and a high level of analytical ability, professional credibility and creativity to handling litigation matters. He rigorously represents his clients' interests in a diverse range of claims and actions. A certified mediator, Mr. Lathrop has extensive experience representing business clients in mediation. His service to the legal profession in North Carolina has allowed him to develop relationships across the state that benefit the firm's clients.


No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

Welcome to the MVA Litigation Blog!

In an increasingly globalized and regulated business environment, companies are faced with ever-changing and complicated litigation and regulatory challenges. The Moore & Van Allen Litigation Blog provides cutting-edge information regarding developments in federal, North Carolina State, and international litigation, as well as in arbitration, regulatory enforcement, and related business practices.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Tony Lathrop:  View Tony Lathrop's Bio View Tony Lathrop's LinkedIn profileFollow @TonyLathropLaw on Twitter
  • Subscribe to Blog Via Email

    Follow MVA


    Blog Topics


    Our Litigation Practice

    Headquartered in the banking and energy hub of Charlotte, North Carolina, Moore & Van Allen has assembled a team of litigators with the intellectual acuity, knowledge of complex commercial transactions, and breadth of experience necessary to successfully serve our clients in all aspects of sophisticated business litigation and white collar criminal defense.

    Guided by trial lawyers with years of substantial state, federal, and international experience, our team addresses the diverse challenges facing our clients, ranging from general commercial litigation and matters involving employment, antitrust, trust & estate, securities or corporate governance issues, to class actions, regulatory enforcement proceedings, and government & internal investigations.

    We represent large Fortune 500® corporations, as well as start-ups, in banking, securities, healthcare, manufacturing, construction, energy, and other industries. We work closely with our clients to develop strategies to meet their business needs, whether that includes taking a case to trial or appeal, arbitrating a case or finding an alternative means of resolution. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA Litigation Team.


    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.

    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)