Busk, et al v. Integrity Staffing Solution, No. 11-16892 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs sued Integrity on behalf of a putative class of workers, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and Nevada labor laws. Plaintiffs alleged that Integrity violated federal and state labor laws by requiring them to pass through a security clearance at the end of each shift, for which they were not compensated. Plaintiffs also sought compensation for their entire 30-minute unpaid lunch periods because they spent up to 10 minutes of the meal period walking to and from the cafeteria and/or undergoing security clearances. The court agreed with the other circuits to consider the issue that the fact that Rule 23 class actions use an opt-out mechanism while FLSA collective actions use an opt-in mechanism did not create a conflict warranting dismissal of the state law claims. The court concluded that preliminary and postliminary activities were still compensable under the FLSA if they were integral and indispensable to an employee's principal activities. Because the court held that plaintiffs have stated a valid claim for relief under the FLSA for the time spent passing through security clearances, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the parallel state law claim. The court agreed that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the FLSA for their shortened lunch periods. The court remanded to the district court to consider plaintiffs' argument that Nevada defined "work" differently than federal law, such that plaintiffs' lunch periods might be compensable under state law even if they were not compensable under federal law.
Court Description: Labor Law. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of warehouse workers’ claims for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada state law. The panel reversed the dismissal of state law claims on the basis that they would be certified using different class certification procedures than the federal wage-and-hour claims. Agreeing with other circuits, the panel held that a FLSA collective action and a state law class action are not inherently incompatible as a matter of law even though plaintiffs must opt into a collective action under the FLSA but must opt out of a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The panel held that the workers stated an unpaid wages claim under the FLSA for undergoing a security screening meant to prevent employee theft. The panel concluded that the workers sufficiently alleged that this “postliminary” activity was “integral and indispensable” to their principal activities. The panel affirmed the dismissal of a claim under the FLSA for shortened lunch periods. It remanded for the district court to consider the argument that the workers stated a state law claim regarding lunch periods because Nevada defines “work” differently than federal law.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 7, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.