Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. v. BUSK
 
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–433.  Argued October 8, 2014—Decided December 9, 2014 

Petitioner  Integrity  Staffing  Solutions,  Inc.,  required  its  hourly  ware-
house  workers,  who  retrieved  products  from  warehouse  shelves  and 
packaged  them  for  delivery  to  Amazon.com  customers,  to  undergo  a
security screening before leaving the warehouse each day.  Respond-
ents, former employees, sued the company alleging, as relevant here,
that they were entitled to compensation under the Fair Labor Stand-
ards  Act  of  1938  (FLSA)  for  the  roughly  25  minutes  each  day  that
they  spent  waiting  to  undergo  and  undergoing  those  screenings. 
They also alleged that the company could have reduced that time to a 
de minimis amount by adding screeners or staggering shift termina-
tions  and  that  the  screenings  were  conducted  to  prevent  employee
theft  and,  thus,  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  employers  and  their  cus-
tomers. 

The  District  Court  dismissed  the  complaint  for  failure  to  state  a 
claim, holding that the screenings were not integral and indispensa-
ble  to  the  employees’  principal  activities  but  were  instead  postlimi-
nary and noncompensable.  The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit  reversed  in  relevant  part,  asserting  that  postshift  activities 
that  would  ordinarily  be  classified  as  noncompensable  postliminary
activities  are  compensable  as  integral  and  indispensable  to  an  em-
ployee’s principal activities if the postshift activities are necessary to
the principal work and performed for the employer’s benefit. 

Held: The time that respondents spent waiting to undergo and undergo-
ing security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA.  Pp. 3–9.
(a) Congress  passed  the  Portal-to-Portal  Act  to  respond  to  an  eco-
nomic emergency created by the broad judicial interpretation given to 
the FLSA’s undefined terms “work” and “workweek.”  See 29 U. S. C.