Aguilar v. Management & Training, 948 F.3d 1270

Background

122 detention officers at Otero County Prison (employed by Management & Training Corporation) perform security-related duties in eight-hour shifts at assigned posts.
Daily routine: arrive → security screening (metal detector, remove metal, inspect bags) → preshift briefing/post assignment → pick up keys/equipment from fingerprint/inventory systems → walk to post → receive passdown briefing → work shift → give passdown → walk back → return keys/equipment → clock out.
MTC requires use of a time clock (located after screening) but typically pays officers by scheduled shift time; a ten-minute adjustment rule causes pay to default to scheduled shift unless clock-in/out is more than ten minutes early/late.
Officers sued under the FLSA and New Mexico wage law for unpaid pre/postshift compensable work and for unlawful rounding; the district court granted summary judgment to MTC (finding only passdown briefings possibly compensable but de minimis and rejecting rounding).
The Tenth Circuit reversed: it held security screening and checking out/returning specialized keys and equipment are "integral and indispensable" to principal duties, making the continuous workday cover preshift and postshift activities; it also rejected de minimis and lack-of-knowledge defenses and allowed the rounding claim to proceed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are pre- and post-shift activities (security screening, preshift briefing, picking up/returning keys & equipment, walking to/from post, passdown briefings) compensable under the FLSA?	These activities are integral and indispensable to officers' principal activities (custody, discipline, searching for contraband, providing security) and thus start/end the workday.	They are preliminary/postliminary (or merely incidental) and therefore excluded by the Portal-to-Portal Act.	Reversed district court: security screening and checking out/returning specialized keys/equipment are integral and indispensable; by the continuous-workday rule, the in‑between activities (briefings, walks, passdowns) are compensable.
Is the time spent on those activities de minimis?	Time exceeds de minimis—regular, ascertainable, and substantial in aggregate.	Time per shift is insubstantial (district court found substantially less than eight minutes) and administratively impractical to record.	Not de minimis: three-factor test (administrative difficulty, aggregate size, regularity) favors officers; much time already recorded and aggregate claim is substantial.
Can MTC avoid liability because it lacked knowledge that officers worked off-the-clock (suffer-or-permit defense)?	MTC required the activities and had processes (screenings, inventory logs, supervised briefings), so it knew or permitted the work.	Officers failed to use time‑adjustment forms/acknowledgment forms, so MTC lacked knowledge and need not pay.	Rejected MTC's defense: requiring/controlling the activities and inventory logs show actual knowledge; employer cannot ignore known work.
Does MTC’s ten-minute adjustment rule unlawfully round employees’ time?	The rule routinely rounds officers’ compensable overtime down (sample showed ~94% unfavorable application) and is therefore non‑neutral as applied.	The rule is neutral and not improper rounding because officers are paid for scheduled shifts.	Rounding claim survives summary judgment: rounding can be relevant to overtime claims and the officers presented evidence of non‑neutral application.

Key Cases Cited

Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2014) (establishes Portal-to-Portal framework and integral-and-indispensable inquiry).
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (defines "integral and indispensable" activities).
Castaneda v. JBS USA, LLC, 819 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2016) (continuous-workday rule: compensability from first to last principal activity).
Reich v. Monfort, 144 F.3d 1329 (10th Cir. 1998) (de minimis doctrine and three-factor test).
Mencia v. Allred, 808 F.3d 463 (10th Cir. 2015) (suffer-or-permit / employer knowledge principle).
Corbin v. Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016) (rounding must be neutral both facially and as applied).
Fairchild v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., 815 F.3d 959 (5th Cir. 2016) (employer with knowledge cannot allow overtime without compensation).
Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (activities required for safe/effective performance of principal duties can be compensable).
Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1956) (preliminary activities integral where necessary to perform principal tasks).
D A & S Oil Well Servicing, Inc. v. Mitchell, 262 F.2d 552 (10th Cir. 1958) (transporting/supplying specialized equipment can be integral and indispensable).