Mandatory Exit Searches Classified as Compensable 'Hours Worked' under California Wage Order 7

Mandatory Exit Searches Classified as Compensable 'Hours Worked' under California Wage Order 7

Introduction

In the landmark case of Amanda Frlekin et al. v. Apple Inc. (8 Cal.5th 1038), the Supreme Court of California addressed whether time spent by Apple Inc. employees undergoing mandatory exit searches should be compensated as "hours worked" under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7-2001 (Wage Order 7). This case has significant implications for employee compensation, particularly in sectors where security measures necessitate additional time investments by employees.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of California ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that the time Apple employees spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory exit searches of personal belongings, including bags and personal technology devices like iPhones, is compensable as "hours worked" under Wage Order 7. The Court emphasized that these activities subjected employees to the control of the employer, thereby necessitating compensation. The decision overturns the lower court's ruling, which had denied compensation for such time.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced prior cases to bolster its decision. Notably, BONO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. BRADSHAW and Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. were pivotal in interpreting the "control clause" of Wage Order 7. These cases established that when an employer exercises significant control over an employee's actions, even outside of direct work tasks, the time spent under such control is compensable.

Additionally, the Court differentiated its ruling from federal precedents like Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, emphasizing that California state law offers broader employee protections and is not bound by federal limitations unless explicitly declared.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's decision hinged on the interpretation of "hours worked" as defined in Wage Order 7, which includes time when an employee is "subject to the control of an employer." The mandatory exit searches at Apple were deemed as activities exerting significant employer control, as employees were confined to the premises and required to undergo specific procedures before leaving.

Apple argued that the exit searches were voluntary in nature, suggesting that employees could avoid compensation by not bringing personal items to work. However, the Court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that in practical terms, many employees feel compelled to carry personal devices like smartphones, making the exit searches effectively mandatory.

The Court also highlighted the historical context of Wage Order 7, pointing out that since its inception, the definition of "hours worked" has been interpreted liberally to favor employee protection. This long-standing precedent influenced the Court to adopt a similar expansive interpretation in this case.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for employment law in California. Employers across various industries may need to reassess their security and operational procedures to ensure compliance with Wage Order 7. Time spent by employees in non-traditional work activities, especially those involving employer control, must be accounted for in compensation. Failure to do so could result in legal challenges and financial liabilities.

Moreover, this decision reinforces the principle that state laws can provide greater protections to employees than federal regulations, encouraging a more employee-centric approach in labor practices within California.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Wage Order 7

Wage Order 7 is a regulation under the California Industrial Welfare Commission that sets minimum wage standards and defines what constitutes "hours worked" for employees in the mercantile industry. It aims to protect employees by ensuring they are compensated for all time they are under employer control.

Control Clause

The "control clause" refers to the part of Wage Order 7 that defines "hours worked" as not just the time an employee is actively working but also any period during which the employee is subject to the employer's control. This includes time spent waiting for mandatory activities like exit searches.

Retroactive Ruling

A retroactive ruling means that the decision applies to events that occurred before the ruling was made. In this case, Apple must compensate employees for exit searches conducted even before the judgment was rendered.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of California's decision in Frlekin v. Apple Inc. marks a significant advancement in employee rights under Wage Order 7. By classifying mandatory exit searches as compensable "hours worked," the Court has underscored the necessity for employers to recognize and remunerate all periods of employee control. This ruling not only aligns with California's commitment to robust employee protections but also sets a precedent that could influence labor practices beyond the mercantile industry. Employers are now obligated to account for all controlled time, ensuring fair compensation and adherence to state labor laws.

Case Details

Year: 2020
Court: SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge(s)

Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.

Attorney(S)

Counsel: The Kralowec Law Group, Kralowec Law, Kimberly A. Kralowec, Kathleen S. Rogers; McLaughlin & Stern, Lee S. Shalov and Brett R. Gallaway for Plaintiffs and Appellants. The Turley & Mara Law Firm, William Turley and David T. Mara for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Kingsley & Kingsley, Eric B. Kingsley and Ari J. Stiller for Bet Tzedek Legal Services as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant Amanda Frlekin Messing Adam & Jasmine, Gregg McLean Adam, Yonatan L. Moskowitz; David A. Sanders and Daniel M. Lindsay for California Correctional Peace Officers' Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Leonard Carder, Aaron D. Kaufmann; Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael David Singer and Janine R. Menhennet for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Littler Mendelson, Richard H. Rahm, Julie A. Dunne; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Joshua S. Lipshutz, Bradley J. Hamburger, Justin T. Goodwin, Lauren M. Blas and Christian Briggs for Defendant and Respondent. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Karin Dougan Vogel, Samantha D. Hardy, Richard J. Simmons and John Ellis for Retail Litigation Center, Inc., and National Retail Federation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Paul Hastings, Paul W. Cane, Jr., Zachary P. Hutton and Blake R. Bertagna for California Employment Law Council and Employers Group as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Horvitz & Levy, Jeremy B. Rosen, Felix Shafir and Eric S. Boorstin for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, California Chamber of Commerce and Civil Justice Association of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Corbin K. Barthold for Washington Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Comments