457 P.3d 526
Cal.2020Background
- Apple required mandatory exit searches of employees’ personal bags, packages, purses, backpacks, briefcases, and personal Apple devices before employees could leave store premises; noncompliance could lead to discipline up to termination.
- Managers/security instructed employees to open/unzip bags, remove items, present devices and personal-technology cards; employees were confined to the premises while waiting for a search.
- Employees clocked out before searches but typically waited 5–20 minutes (sometimes up to 45) unpaid; many employees routinely bring bags or personal devices for ordinary needs (wallet, keys, phone, uniform change, etc.).
- A federal district court certified a California-wide class limited to employees who voluntarily brought searchable items for personal convenience, then granted summary judgment for Apple; the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court.
- Wage Order 7 defines “hours worked” to include time an employee is “subject to the control of an employer” and time the employee is “suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”
- The California Supreme Court held that time spent waiting for and undergoing Apple’s mandatory exit searches is compensable as “hours worked” under the Wage Order 7 control clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent waiting for and undergoing Apple’s exit searches is compensable as “hours worked” under Wage Order 7 (control clause) | Such time is compensable because employees are subject to Apple’s control while confined to premises and compelled to perform search tasks | Not compensable because searches are triggered by voluntarily brought items; compensability requires an activity be required and unavoidable | Held: Compensable — employer control (confinement, specific tasks, disciplinary enforcement) makes the time "hours worked" |
| Whether Morillion and related cases bar recovery because employees could avoid searches by not bringing items | Morillion does not control; on-premises, employer-driven searches differ from commute/optional-benefit contexts | Morillion means voluntarily accepted activities (optional benefits) are not compensable; employees can avoid searches | Held: Morillion’s mandatory/voluntary distinction is not dispositive here; practical compulsion, workplace location, employer benefit, and discipline make searches compensable |
| Whether the time is compensable under the "suffered or permitted to work" clause | Plaintiffs also argued compensability under this clause | Apple defended under federal Portal-to-Portal framing (Integrity Staffing) | Court declined to rule on this alternative theory (no view expressed) |
| Whether the decision should be applied prospectively only | Plaintiffs argued retroactive application; Wage Orders are remedial and should protect employees | Apple argued reliance on existing precedent justified prospective application | Held: Decision applies retroactively; no reasonable reliance justifies prospectivity |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (employer’s level of control — not mere voluntariness — determines compensability under the control clause)
- Bono Enters., Inc. v. Bradshaw, 32 Cal.App.4th 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (interpreting “subject to the control of an employer” to include when employer directs, commands, or restrains employee)
- Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) (wage orders are remedial and must be liberally construed to protect employees)
- Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 833 (Cal. 2015) (same principle: wage orders promote employee protection; questions of hours worked are legal when facts undisputed)
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2014) (under federal Portal-to-Portal Act, mandatory security screenings were held not compensable under FLSA — not controlling for California wage-order analysis)
- Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 136 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (optional employer-provided shuttle held noncompensable)
- Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2 Cal.5th 257 (Cal. 2016) (courts should adopt constructions of wage orders that best effectuate employee-protective purposes)