Apple to face damages trials on employee bag check policy
A federal judge on Wednesday said he is prepared to rule in favor of a class of 12,400 Apple retail employees who allege the tech giant unjustly enforced bag screening policies without pay, setting up what could be a series of damages trials.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup in a hearing on Monday said he plans to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, but will allow Apple to dispute individual claims on a case-by-case basis, reports Reuters.
The case dates back to 2013, when employees sued Apple over anti-theft measures including "demeaning" bag checks that were instituted in 2009. Plaintiffs in the class action argued they should have been compensated for time spent complying with Apple's screening protocols, which were designed to dissuade theft of company property.
According to court documents, the "Employee Package and Bag Searches" rule called for managers to search an employee's bags and personal devices (like iPhones) after clocking out at the end of the workday and, in some cases, lunch breaks. Plaintiffs claimed that routine wait times during these security checks deprived them of wages amounting to more than $1,400 per year.
Alsup dismissed the originating case in 2014, but allowed a class action to move forward under California law. That suit was also dismissed in 2015, with the jurist saying employees could have effectively bypassed Apple's searches by not bringing a bag to work.
Alsup's ruling was reversed when the California Supreme Court last year determined that employees were and are in Apple's control during mandatory exit searches of bags, packages, devices and other items. State law requires companies to compensate employees for time spent on anti-theft programs. A later decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the class action as it stands.
On Wednesday, Alsup said he plans to hold a series of "mini-trials" on damages, during which Apple lawyers can argue against individual member claims. Specifically, some class members might not have waited long enough to reach a threshold for compensation. Apple lawyers pushed for employees to fill out detailed forms regarding time spent in security checks and when those checks were carried out, but that idea was shot down.
"I'm not going to require the claimants to figure out every day they stood in line and how long they stood in line; if they gave dates, they would not be telling the truth," Alsup said. "Apple is just out of luck on that point."
Instead, employees will estimate time spent on bag screening exercises.
Court documents show Apple could be responsible for some $60 million in damages, the report said.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup in a hearing on Monday said he plans to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, but will allow Apple to dispute individual claims on a case-by-case basis, reports Reuters.
The case dates back to 2013, when employees sued Apple over anti-theft measures including "demeaning" bag checks that were instituted in 2009. Plaintiffs in the class action argued they should have been compensated for time spent complying with Apple's screening protocols, which were designed to dissuade theft of company property.
According to court documents, the "Employee Package and Bag Searches" rule called for managers to search an employee's bags and personal devices (like iPhones) after clocking out at the end of the workday and, in some cases, lunch breaks. Plaintiffs claimed that routine wait times during these security checks deprived them of wages amounting to more than $1,400 per year.
Alsup dismissed the originating case in 2014, but allowed a class action to move forward under California law. That suit was also dismissed in 2015, with the jurist saying employees could have effectively bypassed Apple's searches by not bringing a bag to work.
Alsup's ruling was reversed when the California Supreme Court last year determined that employees were and are in Apple's control during mandatory exit searches of bags, packages, devices and other items. State law requires companies to compensate employees for time spent on anti-theft programs. A later decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the class action as it stands.
On Wednesday, Alsup said he plans to hold a series of "mini-trials" on damages, during which Apple lawyers can argue against individual member claims. Specifically, some class members might not have waited long enough to reach a threshold for compensation. Apple lawyers pushed for employees to fill out detailed forms regarding time spent in security checks and when those checks were carried out, but that idea was shot down.
"I'm not going to require the claimants to figure out every day they stood in line and how long they stood in line; if they gave dates, they would not be telling the truth," Alsup said. "Apple is just out of luck on that point."
Instead, employees will estimate time spent on bag screening exercises.
Court documents show Apple could be responsible for some $60 million in damages, the report said.
Comments
If I were an Apple employee, I likely would just opt not to bring any sort of bag and it would be a non-issue. I’m not sure what having this option means legally for Apple, though. Maybe someone savvy in Law could help me understand it. Or perhaps it’s unclear, since the case remains tied up in court.
It seems the cost of doing the checks is greater than any minimal amount of theft they might happen.
This is a complicated case. Apple would have been completely within their rights if they didn't allow employees to bring any devices into the building, period. In that case, the check out would have been trivial. Instead they had a looser policy and let them bring devices with the provision that leaving would be a bit of an inconvenience. It's interesting that the company is penalized giving employees that option.
I like this quote from the article: "Plaintiffs claimed that routine wait times during these security checks deprived them of wages amounting to more than $1,400 per year."
Sounds about right to me, go ahead and pay the plaintiffs $1,400. That works out to a little more than a dollar for each of the 12,400 members of the class. I'd go ahead and round that up to two bucks each.
Interestingly, the question of whether you can move out of the area and still work for the company has received an answer of "it depends on what state you intend to move to."
If a single employee is allowed to move to, say, California, then the company will be obligated to follow California state law with regard to that employee (including that state's "anti-wage-theft" regulations). Some states have laws that are easy to comply with, others are more complicated and/or more onerous. California is in that latter category. Therefore we expect California will be on the list of states to which we cannot move and remain with the company. Most of us find that a bit bizarre, but it is what it is. I can't blame my employer. If a company like Apple can run afoul of California labor laws, what hope does a small east coast company have of complying. So the solution is to not let any of us live in California.
Often a state ruling will be appealed in federal court, but that's not what appears to be happening here. Are there two parallel law suits happening at the state and federal level at the same time? So Apple could end up having two different courts issue compensation for the same violation? I know it's technically/legally possible to be tried in state and federal court for the same crime without violating the principle of double jeopardy, but this almost never happens in parallel (as opposed to charging someone in federal court if the state fails to indict or convict). I would have thought the same would generally occur for civil matters.
Any thoughts (on the legal process of this case/these cases)?
Cook is happy to dish out $100m on a diversity drive PR exercise, but when it comes to actual workers he wrings them dry. That is not the company that any of us want Apple to be.
You're kidding right?! You implicitly would trust every one of your tens of thousands of retail employees? Retailers have and always will require bag searches and the use of transparent bags for employee use on site.