Jesse Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions
713 F.3d 525
9th Cir.2013Background
- Busk and Castro, former Integrity Staffing Solutions employees, sue for FLSA and Nevada wage violations arising from end-of-shift security screenings and shortened lunch periods.
- District court dismissed FLSA claim as noncompensable security time and dismissed state-law claims due to purported class-certification conflicts; remanded or dismissed on merits.
- Plaintiffs alleged security clearances occur at end of shift to prevent theft and are integral to their warehouse work.
- Plaintiffs alleged 30-minute lunches were unpaid because they walked to/from cafeteria and were rushed by supervisors.
- Court holds the FLSA opt-in vs. Rule 23 opt-out combination does not require dismissal of state-law claims; reverses in part and remands for further consideration of Nevada law.
- On the merits, security clearances may be compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act if integral and indispensable; lunch-period compensation remains controlled by “completely relieved from duty” vs. “predominant benefit” analysis; Nevada private right of action for unpaid wages may differ from federal standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-law wage claims may proceed with FLSA claims in one suit. | Busk argues state claims can coexist with FLSA claims. | Integrity argues a conflict requires dismissal. | State claims may proceed alongside FLSA claims. |
| Are end-of-shift security screenings compensable under FLSA as integral and indispensable to work? | Busk alleges screenings are necessary and for employer benefit. | District court relied on nonintegral security time cases. | Yes, plausible FLSA claim for compensable security time. |
| Are shortened lunch periods compensable under FLSA? | Walk to lunch is a work-related duty; lunch should be compensable. | Walking to lunch is not a work duty; time de minimis. | Lunch-period claim not compensable under FLSA; dismissed on this basis. |
| Does Nevada law provide a private right to sue for unpaid wages while FLSA claims proceed? | Nevada law may compensate where federal law does not, and private action exists under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.140. | Labor Commissioner enforcement limits private action; Nevada law may differ. | Remand to address Nevada-law work-definition issue; Nevada private right to action exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes, 564 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1977) (FLSA opt-in requirement limits only FLSA claims; compatible with state-law relief in same action)
- Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp., 675 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2012) (FLSA opt-in and state-law opt-out claims can coexist; not dismissal-worthy)
- Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs., Inc., 632 F.3d 971 (3d Cir. 2011) (Supports coexistence of FLSA and state-law class actions)
- Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., 659 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2011) (Confirms compatibility of opt-in and opt-out mechanisms in related claims)
- Gorman v. Consolidated Edison Co., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007) (Security procedures may be compensable if tied to principal work; distinguishable from entry security)
- Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Construction Co., 487 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2007) (Security screening as non- employer-benefit-dependent time under certain contexts)
- Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2003) (Integrally related protective gear may be compensable)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956) (Established integral and indispensable concept for Portal-to-Portal Act)