512 P.3d 1007
Ariz.2022Background
- Plaintiffs are Arizona Department of Corrections officers who allege they spent ~30 minutes of unpaid, mandatory pre-shift security screening (two checkpoints) before each shift and sued for overtime under A.R.S. § 23-392 (seeking treble damages under § 23-355).
- The State moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing federal law (the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act) controlled and rendered the screening non-compensable; the Officers argued Arizona law governs and the Portal Act was not incorporated.
- The trial court dismissed, concluding Arizona had implicitly adopted the Portal Act via § 23-392 and agency regulations; the court of appeals reversed in part, holding the Portal Act and some federal regulations applied and the screenings were compensable under federal law.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 23-392 incorporates the Portal Act and whether AZDOA regulations can bind the State on the definition of “work.”
- The Court held § 23-392 does not incorporate the Portal Act for defining compensable work for law enforcement, AZDOA lacked authority to import the Portal Act via regulation, and thus the compensability question must be decided under Arizona law; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 23-392 incorporates the Portal-to-Portal Act (and thus federal definitions of compensable “work”) | Roberts: § 23-392 does not incorporate federal Portal Act; state law defines work and provides broader worker protections | State: the phrase “if by the person’s job classification overtime compensation is mandated by federal law” implicitly incorporates the FLSA (including Portal Act) into § 23-392 | Held: § 23-392 does not incorporate the Portal Act; the reference to federal law is limited to identifying job classifications (e.g., § 207(k)), not importing federal definitions of “work.” |
| Whether AZDOA regulations (incorporating 29 C.F.R. parts) lawfully bind Arizona on compensable hours | Roberts: AZDOA lacks legislative authorization to adopt the Portal Act or equivalent federal definitions for law‑enforcement work time | State: AZDOA rulemaking authority and adoption of FLSA regs fills in statutory details and binds agencies/employers | Held: AZDOA lacked clear legislative authorization to adopt the Portal Act for defining work for § 23-392 purposes; those regulations are not binding on this issue (separation of powers concern). |
| Whether pre-shift security screenings are compensable under federal law (Portal Act) | Roberts: even if Portal Act applied, screenings may be compensable under federal precedent | State: under federal Portal Act/implementing regs, screenings are non-compensable preliminary activities | Held: Court did not decide the federal-law merits (unnecessary); remanded to resolve compensability under state law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R. Co. v. Muscoda Loc. No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944) (pre-Portal case defining compensable activities as those under employer control and for employer’s benefit)
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014) (Portal Act inquiry: whether activity is an integral and indispensable part of principal activities)
- Aguilar v. Management & Training Corp., 948 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2020) (held corrections officers’ pre-shift screenings compensable under Portal Act)
- Hootselle v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 624 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. 2021) (held pre-shift screenings non-compensable under Portal Act)
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985) (FLSA applies to state and local governments)
- Prendergast v. City of Tempe, 143 Ariz. 14 (App. 1984) (Arizona test for compensable time: predominantly for employer’s benefit; Arizona did not then incorporate § 207(k))
- Pijanowski v. Yuma County, 202 Ariz. 260 (App. 2002) (applied state forty-hour workweek method; limited reach of § 23-392)
- NFIB v. OSHA, 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022) (discusses limits on agency power and necessity of clear congressional authorization)