483 P.3d 212
Ariz. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiffs are Arizona Department of Corrections corrections officers required to undergo mandatory security screenings before each shift, adding about 30 minutes per eight-hour day.
- Officers sued the State under A.R.S. § 23-392 seeking overtime pay (and treble damages under A.R.S. § 23-355) for screening time.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the FLSA preempts the state claim or (2) Arizona has effectively adopted the Portal-to-Portal Act and applicable federal regulations, which render the screenings non‑compensable; the Officers argued Arizona law independently requires payment and the FLSA does not preempt because they cannot sue the State under the FLSA.
- The superior court granted dismissal, concluding Arizona had implicitly adopted the Portal Act and relied on Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk to find screenings non‑compensable; it also denied leave to amend.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the FLSA does not preempt the state claim, concluded Arizona law/regulations permit application of the Portal Act interpretations, and found the alleged pre‑shift screenings are integral and indispensable to corrections officers’ principal duties and thus compensable; the case was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal preemption (FLSA) of state overtime claims | FLSA does not preempt; officers assert independent state statutory rights and cannot sue the State under FLSA | FLSA preempts overlapping state overtime claims; such claims must be brought under FLSA | FLSA does not preempt state §23-392 overtime claims; states may enforce independent or more protective wage laws |
| Whether Arizona adopted the Portal-to-Portal Act (and related federal regs) | Arizona has not adopted the Portal Act; state law should be read broadly to define "work" | A.R.S. §23-392 plus A.A.C. R2-5A-404 incorporate federal law and regs (29 C.F.R. pts. 553, 778), permitting reference to Portal Act interpretations | Arizona statute and regulations incorporate federal law for compensability analysis; Portal Act interpretations may be consulted under state law |
| Compensability of mandatory security screenings | Pre-shift screenings are integral and indispensable to corrections officers’ principal duties (safety, contraband prevention), so time is compensable | Integrity Staffing (Busk) controls: security screenings are non-compensable because not integral to principal warehouse work | Security screenings, as alleged, are integral and indispensable to corrections officers’ principal activities; screening time is compensable and counts toward overtime |
| Denial of leave to amend complaint | Plaintiffs sought to amend class definition and add a year of overtime | State opposed amendment | Court did not decide whether denial was an abuse of discretion; remanded for further proceedings on compensability and damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014) (Supreme Court framing "integral and indispensable" test for compensable activities)
- Aguilar v. Management & Training Corp., 948 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2020) (pre-shift corrections screenings held compensable)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005) (distinguishing compensable changing vs. waiting time)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956) (shower/changing time compensable where indispensable to work)
- Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U.S. 260 (1956) (time spent sharpening knives compensable as integral to production)
- Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp., 675 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2012) (state law can enforce more protective wage standards alongside FLSA)
- Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing scope of claims covered by FLSA)
- Hockersmith v. City of Patagonia, 123 Ariz. 559 (App. 1979) (Arizona case relying on federal compensability analysis)