Candice Pinares-Baez's article "Should Employees Be Compensated for Time Being Screened for Theft?" was featured in FSR magazine on January 15, 2015.
Late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employees are not entitled to compensation for time spent waiting for and participating in mandatory security screenings at the end of their shifts. This decision is a victory for the increasing number of employers who screen employees to prevent theft. In addition, the Court provided essential guidance in an area of wage and hour law that is consistently a subject of litigation: when does the compensable workday begin and end?
In the article, Candice discusses how the Supreme Court's decision denying wages for employee security screening has impacted the restaurant industry.
Whether a restaurant is family-owned or part of a large chain, this ruling can have wide-reaching effects. Employees who work in businesses where there are numerous cash transactions and easily pilfered items may be screened. Many companies find such screening critical to the integrity of the business and a means to discourage employees who would consider a minor pocketing of cash or items "no big deal."
The Supreme Court's decision has appropriately narrowed the definition of compensable pre- and post-shift activities and avoided a potential flood of wage claims for employers nationwide. Despite this opinion, Candice states, it is imperative that employers analyze any preliminary and postliminary activities engaged in by their employees to determine whether they are compensable based on the Court's rationale.
To read the full article, please visit FSR.
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.
