![]() In addition, the time waiting could have been reduced if the employer hired more screeners or stagger work shifts, which also would not adversely affect the required work. Thomas then argued that the security checks were not integral to Busk's job because they could be eliminated without adversely affecting the required work. He wrote that "an activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform - and thus compensable under the FLSA - if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities". Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court. ![]() The Ninth Circuit disagreed, ruling that the checks were necessary to the principal work of the job. The District Court originally dismissed the case, ruling that the security checks were made after the regular work shift and therefore not "an integral and indispensable part" of the job. Furthermore, since the checks were made to prevent employee theft, they only benefited the employers and the customers, not the employees themselves. They argued that the time waiting could have been reduced if more screeners were added, or shifts were staggered so workers did not have to wait for the checks at the same time. Busk and his fellow workers sued their employer, claiming they were entitled to be paid for those 25 minutes under the Fair Labor Standards Act. At the end of each day, they had to spend about 25 minutes waiting to undergo anti-theft security checks before leaving. Jesse Busk was among several workers employed by the temp agency Integrity Staffing Solutions to work in 's warehouse in Nevada to help package and fulfill orders. The Court delivered their ruling on December 9, 2014. 27 (2014), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that time spent by workers waiting to undergo anti-employee theft security screenings is not "integral and indispensable" to their work, and thus not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Judgment reversed.Ĭhief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia 2013).Īctivities that are not integral and indispensable to the principal activities of a job are not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., 713 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. Integrity Staffing may also be known as or be related to Integrity Staffing, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.Busk v. The data presented on this page does not represent the view of Integrity Staffing and its employees or that of Zippia. None of the information on this page has been provided or approved by Integrity Staffing. While we have made attempts to ensure that the information displayed are correct, Zippia is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of this information. ![]() Sources of data may include, but are not limited to, the BLS, company filings, estimates based on those filings, H1B filings, and other public and private datasets. The data on this page is also based on data sources collected from public and open data sources on the Internet and other locations, as well as proprietary data we licensed from other companies. The employee data is based on information from people who have self-reported their past or current employments at Integrity Staffing. Zippia gives an in-depth look into the details of Integrity Staffing, including salaries, political affiliations, employee data, and more, in order to inform job seekers about Integrity Staffing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |