ARTICLE
19 February 2020

CA Supreme Court Publishes "Hours Worked" Decision

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

BakerHostetler logo
Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
The California Supreme Court has concluded that employees must be compensated for time spent on the employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages,
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The California Supreme Court has concluded that employees must be compensated for time spent on the employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices. The Court explained that this time is compensable because the employees are under the employer's control and the searches are being performed for the employer's benefit. The Court reached this decision applying California law, and the same result would not necessarily be reached under the FLSA.

Employers should therefore review any policies or practices that require employees to perform any "off the clock" or otherwise uncompensated tasks. Key factors identified by the Court as to whether the activities are compensable are 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.

The Court's opinion, Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., Case No. S243805, can be accessed here.

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.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More