Highlights
The California Supreme Court has handed down yet another decision broadening the scope of what is considered compensable work time underCalifornia's Wage Orders.-
In Frlekin v.
Apple Inc. , the state high court held that the time spent on an employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, mandatory exit searches of personal bags and devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience is compensable as "hours worked." -
The decision reinforces that companies operating inside, as well as outside,
California must ensure their policies addressCalifornia -centric compensation rules that have departed from the federal standards.
Background
Plaintiffs allege that Apple failed to pay them minimum and overtime wages for time spent waiting for and undergoing required exit searches, which they contend violates
Plaintiffs had also asserted claims that such unpaid time violated federal law and the labor laws of other states, but these claims were dismissed after the
At issue in Frlekin is the
In its opinion, the court disagreed with the argument that an activity must be "required" and "unavoidable" in order to be compensable; an interpretation that it determined is at odds with the wage order's purpose of protecting and benefiting employees, in addition to lacking support in the language and history of the wage order. The court also disagreed with the argument that bringing personal bags and devices, such as iPhones, to work is not "required," highlighting the realities of modern-day life and Apple's own "description of iPhones as an 'integrated and integral' part of the lives of everyone else." The court also noted that the
The court did not entirely discount the importance of whether an activity is required. Rather, it emphasized that such a requirement is probative to determine whether the employees is actually subject to an employer's control. But further clarified that, in cases involving onsite employer-controlled activities, "courts may and should consider additional relevant factors—including, but not limited to, the location of the activity, the degree of the employer's control, whether the activity primarily benefits the employee or employer, and whether the activity is enforced through disciplinary measures—when evaluating such employer-controlled conduct."
As applied to Apple's mandatory exit search policy, the court stated that "it is clear that plaintiffs are subject to Apple's control while awaiting and during, Apple's exit searches," and, thus, plaintiffs must be paid for this time. According to the court, "Apple's exit searches are required as a practical matter, occur at the workplace, involve a significant degree of control, are imposed primarily for Apple's benefit, and are enforced through threat of discipline." The court did note that Apple retains the ability to tailor its policy "as narrowly or broadly as it desires," such as by limiting the size, shape or number of allowable bags or requiring that such items be stored offsite, such as in lockers or breakrooms, but it must nonetheless compensate those employees to whom its policy applies.
Conclusion and Takeaways
Ultimately, today's decision provides further guidance on the compensability of work-related activities performed by employees located in
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Ms
8th Floor
CA 90071
Tel: 6175232700
Fax: 6175236850
E-mail: Kristin.vasilj@hklaw.com
URL: www.hklaw.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source