Daily News

View All News

Supreme Court justices ask questions in staffing firm security case

October 08, 2014

The US Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments today in a case where staffing firm workers claim they are owed pay for waiting in security screening lines when leaving the warehouse of staffing client Amazon.com. It’s a case that could impact all companies with such security systems in place.

“The justices were very engaged. They asked hard questions and good questions of both sides; I think it’s difficult to make a prediction of what the court will do,” said Joseph Palmore, who viewed the hearing today. Palmore is co-chair of Morrison & Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group as well as a former assistant to the solicitor general at the Justice Department.

Plaintiffs Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro were Integrity Staffing Solutions employees filling orders at Amazon warehouses in Las Vegas and Fernley, Nev., according to court records. They argued violations of federal and state labor laws because they were required to spend up to 25 minutes at the end of their workday going through a security line. Employees had to remove wallets, keys and belts, then pass through metal detectors.

A federal court in Nevada ruled in favor of Integrity in July 2011. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013 reversed the lower court’s decision related to time spent in the security line, ruling it was an integral part of the employees’ work. Integrity then took the case to the Supreme Court.

Palmore said Integrity’s argument is that the screening is a logical part of the exit process — similar to punching a time clock, which is not compensable.

“As is often the case, the court asked many hypothetical questions to gain a better understanding of implications of counsel’s positions,” Palmore said. “I think [Integrity’s attorney Paul Clement] was able to allay many concerns through his answers to some of those hypothetical question.”

One such question was whether mandatory drug testing is compensable. Palmore said Clement argued it would be because it was not part of the exit process.

That is also the position of the US Department of Labor, and Justice Breyer referred to this, Palmore said. Long-standing positions by a federal agency can be important in a case such this, he said.

It’s unknown when the justices will issue a decision in this case. A decision must come before June, but it will likely come before then.

MSNBC reports billions of dollars could be at stake in the decision.