Lawsuit over Apple retail workers' unpaid bag checks may go to California Supreme Court
A class action suit over Apple store workers' unpaid time spent in bag checks may soon be headed to the California Supreme Court, after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appealed to the institution for guidance.
In a Wednesday filing, the Court of Appeals asked the state's Supreme Court to decide whether bag checks are "compensable as 'hours worked' within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7," even when people could technically avoid the checks by leaving purses, backpacks, and other bags at home.
"As a practical matter, many persons routinely carry bags, purses, and satchels to work, for all sorts of reasons," the court noted. "Although not 'required' in a strict, formal sense, many employees may feel that they have little true choice when it comes to the search policy, especially given that the policy applies day in and day out. Because we have little guidance on determining where to draw the line between purely voluntary actions and strictly mandatory actions, we are uncertain on which side of the line Plaintiffs' claim falls."
Any interpretation of the Wage Order will have "significant legal, economic, and practical consequences for employers and employees throughout the state of California, and it will govern the outcome of many disputes in both state and federal courts in the Ninth Circuit," the court added.
The original case against Apple complained that workers can spend up to 20 minutes per day being searched before being allowed to leave a store. Apple has claimed that its searches take only seconds, and pointed to the option of just leaving bags at home. A 2015 decision dismissing the case was later brought to the Court of Appeals.
In a Wednesday filing, the Court of Appeals asked the state's Supreme Court to decide whether bag checks are "compensable as 'hours worked' within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7," even when people could technically avoid the checks by leaving purses, backpacks, and other bags at home.
"As a practical matter, many persons routinely carry bags, purses, and satchels to work, for all sorts of reasons," the court noted. "Although not 'required' in a strict, formal sense, many employees may feel that they have little true choice when it comes to the search policy, especially given that the policy applies day in and day out. Because we have little guidance on determining where to draw the line between purely voluntary actions and strictly mandatory actions, we are uncertain on which side of the line Plaintiffs' claim falls."
Any interpretation of the Wage Order will have "significant legal, economic, and practical consequences for employers and employees throughout the state of California, and it will govern the outcome of many disputes in both state and federal courts in the Ninth Circuit," the court added.
The original case against Apple complained that workers can spend up to 20 minutes per day being searched before being allowed to leave a store. Apple has claimed that its searches take only seconds, and pointed to the option of just leaving bags at home. A 2015 decision dismissing the case was later brought to the Court of Appeals.
Comments
Sorry but no. If an employer requires its hourly workers to do anything, they pay. Lawyers and graphic designers don’t give away free time to clients (even short phone calls): they bill it. Why should retail workers be expected to give employers free clock time?
They shouldn’t. To say otherwise is being irrational in the name of brand loyalty, rugged individualism and bootstrapping, yada yada. Part of Americans’ odd infatuation with corporate masters and business over people. (“Corporations are people, my friend.” -Mitt Romney)
In all honesty it is a fair bit of money involved so I get the complaints, tho probably less in total over a year than any member of Apple's executive team got in recompense for working just today.
IMO: if I'm not on the clock, I get to do whatever the hell I want. If I'm doing what my employer wants… apparently I'm back on the clock. I don't see how this is even controversial. ditto for the example of lawyers taking calls.
And if these checks can really take as long as 25 minutes, that's 5% of your pay if you're on an 8 hour shift, 10% if you're part-time. Those are big numbers when you're on a retail salary.
The answer is... for the most part, yes.
That Supreme Court decision involved a suit based on a particular federal law, i.e. the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1938. The suit we're talking about here is, at this stage, based on California law which apparently doesn't mirror the FLSA in relevant ways. In other words, that Supreme Court decision doesn't foreclose the plaintiffs' remaining claims in this case.
This suit had previously made claims based on the FLSA and other state laws which sufficiently mirrored the FLSA. Those claims were dismissed based on that Supreme Court decision. The district court then granted summary judgment in Apple's favor on the remaining California law claims. What we're dealing with now is an appeal of the decision relating to those California law claims. The Ninth Circuit has, in essence, asked the Supreme Court of California to tell it how California law should be interpreted in this particular context.