Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. v. BUSK 

Opinion of the Court 

Integrity  Staffing  required  its  employees  to  undergo  a 
security screening before leaving the warehouse at the end 
of  each  day.  During  this  screening,  employees  removed 
items  such  as  wallets,  keys,  and  belts  from  their  persons
and passed through metal detectors. 

In  2010,  Busk  and  Castro  filed  a  putative  class  action
against  Integrity  Staffing  on  behalf  of  similarly  situated
employees in the Nevada warehouses for alleged violations
of the FLSA and Nevada labor laws.  As relevant here, the 
employees alleged that they were entitled to compensation
under the FLSA for the time spent waiting to undergo and
actually undergoing the security screenings.  They alleged
that such time amounted to roughly 25 minutes each day 
and  that  it  could  have  been  reduced  to  a  de  minimis 
amount  by  adding  more  security  screeners  or  by  stagger-
ing the termination of shifts so that employees could flow 
through  the  checkpoint  more  quickly.    They  also  alleged 
that  the  screenings  were  conducted  “to  prevent  employee
theft” and thus occurred “solely for the benefit of the em-
ployers and their customers.”  App. 19, 21.

The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to
state a claim, holding that the time spent waiting for and 
undergoing  the  security  screenings  was  not  compensable 
under the FLSA.  It explained that, because the screenings
occurred after the regular work shift, the employees could
state a claim for compensation only if the screenings were
an integral and indispensable part of the principal activi-
ties  they  were  employed  to  perform.  The  District  Court 
held that these screenings were not integral and indispen-
sable  but  instead  fell  into  a  noncompensable  category  of
postliminary activities.

The  United  States  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Ninth  Cir-
cuit reversed in relevant part.  713 F. 3d 525 (2013).  The 
Court  of  Appeals  asserted  that  postshift  activities  that
would ordinarily be classified as noncompensable postlim-
inary  activities  are  nevertheless  compensable  as  integral