Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. (In Re Amazon.com, Inc.)
905 F.3d 387
6th Cir.2018Background
- Integrity Staffing (and Amazon) required hourly warehouse employees to undergo mandatory post-shift security screenings; employees clocked out before the screening and were unpaid for waiting and screening time (allegedly ~25 minutes/day) and screenings occurred before lunch breaks, shortening the unpaid break.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action asserting Nevada and Arizona wage-law claims for unpaid hours, overtime, minimum wage violations, and continuation wages; federal FLSA claims were dropped after the Supreme Court held the same screenings are noncompensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act.
- The district court dismissed state-law claims, reasoning Nevada and Arizona had effectively adopted the federal Portal-to-Portal exclusions and plaintiffs failed to plead a workweek showing minimum-wage shortfalls.
- Nevada Supreme Court later held (Neville) that Nevada law provides a private cause of action for unpaid wages under NRS Chapter 608, undermining one basis for dismissal.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit panel (Clay, joined by Sargus; Batchelder partly dissenting) reversed dismissal of Nevada claims (finding screening time is "work" and Nevada did not adopt the Portal-to-Portal Act) and affirmed dismissal of Arizona claims (finding Arizona applies a workweek-based minimum-wage requirement and plaintiffs failed to plead a deficient workweek).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory security screening time is "work" under Nevada law | Screening time is required by employer and primarily benefits employer → counts as work | Portal-to-Portal and federal precedent mean such post-shift activities are noncompensable | Screening time is "work" under Nevada law (Nevada adopts federal definition of "work") |
| Whether Nevada adopted the Portal-to-Portal Act exclusions, making screenings noncompensable | Nevada has no statute adopting Portal-to-Portal; state law and regs require pay for hours directed by employer → no adoption | Nevada parallels FLSA; courts should apply Portal-to-Portal exclusions | Nevada has not adopted Portal-to-Portal by implication; therefore Portal-to-Portal exclusions do not bar state claims |
| Whether plaintiffs have a private right to sue under Nevada wage statutes | NRS Chapter 608 implies a private cause of action; Neville confirms | No private cause of action absent contract | Nevada employees have a private cause of action under NRS Chapter 608 (Neville) |
| Whether Arizona law requires pleading a deficient workweek for minimum-wage claims | Plaintiffs argue state law requires only an unpaid hour allegation, not a workweek calculation | Arizona applies a workweek-based minimum-wage requirement analogous to FLSA | Arizona requires a workweek showing; plaintiffs failed to plead it, so Arizona minimum-wage claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (2014) (Supreme Court held post-shift security screenings are noncompensable postliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005) (clarifies relationship between "principal activities," "integral and indispensable," and Portal-to-Portal Act exceptions)
- Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944) (early broad definition of "work" under FLSA)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (workweek includes time necessarily required on employer premises)
- Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944) (readiness to serve and waiting time can be compensable)
- Vance v. Amazon.com, 852 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2017) (panel's guidance on federal law and Portal-to-Portal in related MDL context)
- Neville v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 406 P.3d 499 (Nev. 2017) (Nevada Supreme Court: NRS 608.140 recognizes a private cause of action for unpaid wages)