In a post last month we discussed the background of Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, a case arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act in which the Supreme Court had recently heard oral argument. The question in the case was whether an hourly employee is entitled to compensation under the FLSA for time spent participating in an employer-mandated anti-theft search at the end of the workday. In its decision, handed down yesterday, a unanimous Court made clear that the answer is no.
The case turned on the application of the Portal-to-Portal Act, which carves out exceptions to the FLSA’s general requirement of overtime compensation for when employees work more than 40 hours per week. Under the Portal-to-Portal Act, employees need not be compensated for activities that are “preliminary” or “postliminary” to the “principal activities” they are hired to perform. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Act to require compensation for activities that are “integral and indispensable” to principal activities.
The plaintiffs in Busk were warehouse workers who were required to pass through a security screening at the end of each shift. They were not compensated for time spent going through this process, which could take as long as 25 minutes. After the district court dismissed plaintiffs putative class-action claim, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that when activities are “necessary to employees’ primary work . . . and done for [the employer]’s benefit,” those activities are compensable as “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ principal activities.
The Supreme Court reversed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Thomas emphasized the “ordinary sense” of the words “integral and indispensable,” explaining that an activity is integral and indispensable to principal activities only “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.” Because “Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work,” the screenings did not fall within the FLSA’s coverage.
The Court faulted the Ninth Circuit for “focusing on whether an employer required a particular activity.” Any test that focused merely on whether an employer required a given activity would sweep far too broadly, requiring compensation for the very activities that the Portal-to-Portal Act was specifically intended to exempt. The same would be true for any “test that turns on whether the activity is for the benefit of the employer.”
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred, writing separately to elaborate on her understanding of the Court’s standard. She first explained that in her view, “an activity is ‘indispensable’ to another, principal activity only when an employee could not dispense with it without impairing his ability to perform the principal activity safely and effectively.” Second, Justice Sotomayor clarified why the screenings were not themselves “principal activities.” She emphasized that the Portal-to-Portal Act “distinguishes between activities that are essentially part of the ingress and egress process, on the one hand, and activities that constitute the actual ‘work of consequence performed for an employer,’ on the other hand” Because the screenings at issue “were part of the process by which the employees egressed their place of work,” they clearly fell within the Portal-to-Portal Act’s exception for “postliminary” activities.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
July 1
In today’s news and commentary, the Department of Labor proposes to roll back minimum wage and overtime protections for home care workers, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by public defenders over a union’s Gaza statements, and Philadelphia’s largest municipal union is on strike for first time in nearly 40 years. On Monday, the U.S. […]
June 30
Antidiscrimination scholars question McDonnell Douglas, George Washington University Hospital bargained in bad faith, and NY regulators defend LPA dispensary law.
June 29
In today’s news and commentary, Trump v. CASA restricts nationwide injunctions, a preliminary injunction continues to stop DOL from shutting down Job Corps, and the minimum wage is set to rise in multiple cities and states. On Friday, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that […]
June 27
Labor's role in Zohran Mamdani's victory; DHS funding amendment aims to expand guest worker programs; COSELL submission deadline rapidly approaching
June 26
A district judge issues a preliminary injunction blocking agencies from implementing Trump’s executive order eliminating collective bargaining for federal workers; workers organize for the reinstatement of two doctors who were put on administrative leave after union activity; and Lamont vetoes unemployment benefits for striking workers.
June 25
Some circuits show less deference to NLRB; 3d Cir. affirms return to broader concerted activity definition; changes to federal workforce excluded from One Big Beautiful Bill.