i think the basic legal framework is pretty well settled under the f l as a employers are required to pay overtime compensation to employees who work more than forty hours a week employee by or required by the employer we've got this portal to portal act now that says that getting to your place of work as an account so that doesn't this briefing final briefing certainly would be covered as the district court found but why aren't all these other things kind of taken off the table by the portal reporting like what the report of the for lack of limits compensation for walking and travel time and decide these cases on a case by case basis i case specific basis to decide whether the tasks at issue are really the productive work that the employees were hard to perform or tasks better closely connected with correct that's best corrected the activity must also be closely connected with the work that the employee is required to perform as well as being indispensable to that task so i'd like to start with the activity  the officers activities during the time when they walk from the central control office to their duty station where they receive the path around freezing because i think that helps highlight the officers principle work activities another the officer's contention is that during this time they're performing their principal duty of providing security and that makes it a principle work activity more specifically their job description season the potential for a crying being committed or if it's totally out of that full day now with that officer that officer's time off duty as a you are much like an off duty police officer why would that all of her prison detention officers timestamped walking to the post why would that be work  that compensable under the s l o say and not be off duty security guard well there are two reasons one is unlike the police officer in the hypothetical is three officers here are in their employer's workplace alert and vigilant for the types of tasks that they are required to be alert and vigilant to as part of their work and secondly as one of the officers testified we were on duty guarding in the during that time so unlikely that the police may have a firefighter at a fire station doing proper puzzles you know watching television hopefully nothing ever happens and you never call to duty but he's still at work on duty during that period of time he is in engage during the walk they have no duties at all presumably the cafeteria worker would not beyond duty would not be on guard would not be providing security during the walk between the control office in the cafeteria for these officers not just working when he's responding to a fire he's responding he's at work when he's waiting for the fire up and these guys are guarding in me when they're walking is you know so we go and you're saying it doesn't make any difference whether there's an incident that requires them to do anything wearing a hard hat or maybe your plugs as tom and tom and workplace star that's the dawning of that type of garbage not usually compared to snuff but if you have specialized equipment like the officers a give you a ten minute opportunity to get to the job and they said look that on the whole is going to come up and we can concede that all of this other is is on do the work and the t in the morning in they clearly aren't going to get to the transition time till the ten up so they they will up i suppose it might get into trouble because the guy who was to get off isn't going to be able to get off until eight ten so you're saying they have to come in ten minutes early but they get that ten minute allowance right now and your honor they don't get that ten minutes long they get compensated for eight hours period and they're re be at their duty station for eight hours in a twenty four hour period into c p s for twenty four hours of work three guys working three shifts you know there are some shifts where there are three shifts or some stations refuges but basically pays for twenty four hours of community you do get paid i'm not understanding correctly and there is some mechanism for paying them for more turn if they clock in more than ten minutes before more than ten minutes after practice so then they do get to the station by the appointed prince transition that's correct and that's the problem they're not being paid for that time and then i mean a reasonable trier of fact could find that these duties the officers are performing along the way are not just billy may please the court my name is erin viets i represent management and training corporation let me begin with the time clock so u the facts as this case unfolded there was a time adjustment window as in t c calls it so that if you clock in within ten minutes either side of your scheduled shift start or end you are paid from shift start why in ten minutes well it's a rough approximation of the time it takes to get from the time clock out to the post but if you clock in ten minutes after your shift began i mean have to be at the transition point at the anointed eight o'clock time company that's correct that ended i knew that they have to if they have to clock in on average significantly ahead of the  time that they clock in more than to misery they'll get compensated but presumably this whole process takes less than ten minutes so so up the the syllogism that yeah there's two you let me let me explain the evidence as it was presented in the district court and that is this is an officer drives into the parking lot and sees an inmate a steeping out of the day that's compensable time and the same sort of analysis holds true all the way up to post there wasn't any evidence in the case of a situation where an officer had to helping to fight a fire the question is are they on duty doing their work to be available to fight an inmate and ninety percent of the time these officers will go through the entire shift and not have to engage in women depending on whether what their assignment is of course will corrections officers i think are engaging inmates or the majority of their on post time but i think you now is it in the the firefighter cases or the cases where an employee is engaged to these detention officer are obligated as part of their job assignment to be attentive to look for inmates in to engage in a if they see something that is improper so i think so yeah let me let me clarify that because that's not our position in so far as now they're on duty as soon as they're on prison property no that's not correct these officers until they get on post they are free to go get a cup of coffee in the commissary they can get a candy bar they're not on duty until they actually relieve the oncoming officer i don't think it's any more complicated than that and i don't mean to suggest  difference between a firefighter who might not be experiencing a fire but by conscious there is a fire they'd better get to it if that was right then we would require all off duty firefighters would say well that's the difference between being obligated to be on for an office if you're on premises on the prison yard i think that's quite a bit different than me being a firefighter and we know that's not correct but the issue is what's preliminary and post women are still there on the premises but they're not actually working until they get to their posts so while there are walking in between if something happens if it doesn't under certain circumstances yes there may be a duty to compensate those officers but otherwise they're free to go about their business their only task is to be sure they're on post by shift start to leave that's the problem and summary judgment we're just speculating think of all the hype with illegals we've asked back and forth molest in minutes what if this happens what if that happens when they get paid when they get paid are these questions of what happened day in and day out on the way to and from post all of that was from the testimony of the plaintiff themselves so did note but did both sides seek summary judgment in this case frankly i'm a little surprised the planes didn't move but they did not they did not know organs only use on summary judgment for all sides and so i think that we we treat that as an admission that both sides are satisfied the requisite is going to get but that's not the case here i just want to emphasize that i'm well aware of the standard on s and i think the answer is no but the question is is being handed that sheet of paper one too as some some officers put it as high as i think thirty or forty sheets even if it's that much paper that trigger the start of the work drawn in the case law including decisions from the circuit with regard to the item that we're talking about being handed a sheet of paper and then toting it to the place a performance of the line seems to be about the burden of carrying paper to the post i'm talking about that discreet task of beating your supervisor to get the county or if you're if you if you're at the keys of the sale of getting the a native vs g b s the meatpackers case the holding one holding in that case is that the meat cutters who had to take their knives and hooks to the place of performance weren't being were engaging in compensable activity when they collected those items and took them to the workplace i don't think the analogy is really that different absolutely those guys gals needed their knives and hooks to do their work similar i mean i would these are we loading a truck full of heavy equipment and taking that out to the work site where you know where that might be compensable or is it something more simple i mean really say i understand you're advocating for th of handcuffs that somehow that makes it not integral or indispensable but i didn't see that line and i guess i'm struggling to see where you came up with it might apply  in that case was a briefcase carrying papers in a briefcase not compensable i think that would be analogous to account for example what about the screening process what i understand that in some cases like bust that's not compensable but here i mean in both cases all the amazon employees who were screened post work right correct to make sure they hadn't taken anything essentially but isn't this different here where they're being so part of their job is to detect contraband and to find it yet rid of it make sure the prisoners don't have access to it right so he or if they say it unintentionally or intentionally if the employees bring in contraband why isn't that integral to their job that you that screening gets done so it doesn't happen because they can still do their jobs without it with papers but a prison be less safe yes but that's not the test of the standard whether it's substantially impacts and wouldn't that is if none of these employees are case who you know they're leaving in doesn't impact their work that to be screened to make sure they haven't taken anything or bus didn't use the example of a of a safety related search and that's of course what's happening at the prison bit different in that a part of the job of these officers is to root out contraband the make sure none of that comes into the facility that's a little different than the screening at any other facility i don't think there's any dispute that that the officer who operates the metal detector has to be paid and that's what you're suggesting i think now i'm going to i'm suggesting that the officers who go through the screening their job if op no officer goes through a screening i guess to me that screening process is integral to their jobs because their jobs involve on the other side of the screening making sure no contraband has come in it's intergroup and indispensable i'm still troubled by the summary judgment stage here which the players did not concede or did not ask for themselves was there evidence or allegations about the ram but problem of contraband in prisons and how much of that contraband is evidence i would just urge is court to read best closely and carefully and as i read it the supreme court in that decision doesn't make a distinction between the reasons for the search and just because this case involves prison guards it doesn't mean that's going through the metal detector is integral and indispensable again the job can be done without it think of how did we guard prisons in the in the days before there were those things the job got done work is not whether it's safety related issues whether it's a job related or more specifically whether it's tied to the productive work the employees are employed to perform if it is it's integral in this case indispensable these officers jobs are the test of whether under some conceptual possibility might be possible to keep doing the job without the security screening but whether it could be done just as efficiently and just as effective in security screening and clearly it could not i the warden did testify that he had seen situations in the past where security guards brought contraband into the prison according to package and ship those products greg and if they are stealing the products so they have the product they can't very well ship this right sure i mean you can you can draw a connection between what they were doing and the post shifts training but what the supreme court said is that the job these guys were hired to do was it was shelf and warehouse and ship these items and that potion screening guys are essential functions as listed and their job description included searching for contraband as well as providing security in the testimonies that contraband is excluded in order to provide security it was fairly screenings conducted in order to provide security is the stealing at the end of the the me that was for the protection of the employer not to get the job that was to keep their from going out the door i mean the job was already done by the