|
Employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions facilities in
Nevada, where merchandise is processed and shipped, say they are
forced to spend up to half an hour daily going through security
screenings aimed at protecting against theft. They say they
should be paid for their time and have asked for back wages and
overtime pay.
During Wednesday's oral argument in the closely watched
employment law case, there were justices on the nine-member
court who signaled support for one side or another and some who
gave little sign of how they would vote.
Several of the court's conservatives, including Justice Antonin
Scalia, appeared skeptical that the screening process was a
"principal activity" of the workers' jobs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and therefore subject to compensation.
Under Supreme Court precedent, employees are paid if the work in
question is "integral and indispensable" to the principal
activity.
"No one's principal activity is going through security
screening," added Chief Justice John Roberts.
President Barack Obama's administration has backed the
warehousing company's position. Both the company and the
government argue the checks are not central to warehouse work
and instead are more like waiting in line to punch a time clock,
an activity some courts have found does not require
compensation.
The workers' strongest advocate on the bench was liberal Justice
Elena Kagan. She asked whether the security checks are similar
to the checking-out process bank tellers and cashiers have to go
through at the end of their shifts.
Workers would likely have a strong argument if they sued in
those instances, she said.
"What's the difference between that case and going through
security at Amazon?" Kagan asked Integrity Staffing's lawyer,
Paul Clement.
Clement conceded that Kagan's examples would constitute a "close
question." But he said the Integrity Staffing case is different
because the screenings are part of the process workers go
through after their work has ended and they are leaving the
building.
In April, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the
screenings were an integral part of the warehousing job done for
the benefit of the employer and should be compensated.
Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, is not directly
involved in the suit. But a business group called the Retail
Litigation Center, in a brief supporting the warehousing
company, said the industry in general loses $16 billion annually
in thefts.
A ruling is due by June.
The case is Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc v. Jesse Busk and
Laurie Castro, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-433.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Mica
Rosenberg; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
|
