Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc.
870 F.3d 867
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are former and current non-exempt California Apple retail employees who challenge Apple’s mandatory on-premises "Employee Package and Bag Searches" policy and seek pay for time spent waiting for and undergoing exit searches.
- Policy required all personal bags/packages to be searched by management/security before employees could leave; employees had to clock out prior to searches and received no compensation for that time.
- District court certified a class limited to employees who voluntarily brought bags to work purely for personal convenience and then granted summary judgment to Apple, ruling the exit-search time was not compensable under California law.
- Plaintiffs appealed; Ninth Circuit concluded California law controls and that no clear controlling precedent resolves whether voluntary-on-its-face but compelled-on-premises searches constitute "hours worked."
- Because the question is dispositive and unsettled under California law, the Ninth Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent on employer premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of voluntarily-brought personal bags is "hours worked" under Cal. IWC Wage Order No. 7 | Search time is compensable because employees are "subject to the control" of the employer while waiting for and during searches and thus fall within the Wage Order definition of "hours worked." | Search time is not compensable because the searches are not "required"—employees can avoid them by choosing not to bring bags, so Morillion and related authority treat such voluntary antecedent choices as dispositive. | Ninth Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court, noting uncertainty whether Morillion’s mandatory/voluntary distinction applies to on-site searches and that the determination has statewide consequences; the Ninth Circuit deferred to the state court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 995 P.2d 139 (Cal. 2000) (California Supreme Court interpreted "hours worked" to require compensation when employer-required travel subjected employees to employer control)
- Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (2014) (U.S. Supreme Court held certain time spent on security screenings not compensable under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act)
- Alcantar v. Hobart Service, 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (Ninth Circuit held only genuine, not illusory, choices avoid California wage-hour liability)
- Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693 (Ct. App. 2006) (California Court of Appeal applied Morillion to find non-compensable travel/shuttle time where employees were not required to use employer shuttle)