Integrity Staffing Solution: Inc Vs Busk and Castro - Case Study Example

Team Paper: Integrity Staffing Solution Inc Vs Busk and Castro Part A Integrity Staffing Solution Inc v. Busk et al., D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01854-RLH-RJJ Citation Integrity Staffing Solution Inc v. Busk et al., D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01854-RLH-RJJ Appellants: Jesse Busk Laurie Castro Respondent: Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. Circuit Judges: Jerome Farris Sidney R. Thomas N. Randy Smith Facts The case was first heard in Nevada District Court and Appealed at the Ninth Circuit by Jesse Busk et al. The Ninth Circuit heard the appeal on 12th April 2013, after which Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. appealed the decision at the Supreme Court. In the District Court, Jesse Busk et al. were the plaintiffs. Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. was the defendant. The District Court dismissed the case leading to an appeal by Jesse Busk et al. The US Court of Appeal for Ninth Circuit reversed in part the decision of the District Court and remanded the case, referring it back to the District Court. Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari to the US. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Case Background: Reasons for the Lawsuit Integrity staffing solutions is one of the most vital and influential company that was first integrated in the year 1997 for the sole purpose of creating a program for innovation and creativity in both the temporary and direct hire employment sector. Its existence in the past few decades has indeed assisted a vast majority of people who were once hapless in getting a decent employment. Indeed, the fruits bore by the efforts of the incorporation are indescribable and immeasurable with a vast number of the employed accounting their success from the corporation. On 22nd October in the year 2010, the Integrity staffing solutions Inc. had received a lot of limelight due to the allegations claimed by Busk and Castro. According to plaintiffs, Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, Integrity Staffing Solution Company had violated some of the Nevada labor laws and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (Blenk, 1993). The complainants, Busk and Castro were once among the employees of the Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc, which is known to provide warehouse space and staffing to clients. Busk and Castro had sued the Integrity staffing solutions, Inc on behalf of the putative class of workers. According to Busk and Castro, the precursor of this case was the Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc who had violated both the federal and state labor laws. Specifically, the employees alleged that the Integrity company management had required the employees to undergo post-shift security screens, which would last for over 30 minutes, yet the company failed to compensate the employees for the time spent while undergoing the screenings (Sciarra, 2011). Busk and Castro further complained that the employees had to wait for up to 30 minutes to be searched. They had to remove their keys, wallets and belts before they passed through the metal detectors. Busk and Castro also indicated that the employer made them go through the security screening after every shift. According to them, the employer consumed much of their time as they were paid on hourly basis. Integrity Staffing Solutions claimed that it is immune from liability under the Portal to portal Act of 1947, which provides that any company is not required to compensate employees for activities that are postliminary to the employees work activities (Blenk, 1993). However, there is legal complication under the amended Portal-to-Portal Act, under the FLSA; employers are obliged to pay employees for post-shift security screenings (Kim and De la Torre, 2014). The company further argued that the clearances were necessary to the employer’s task of minimizing shrinkage or loss of product from warehouse theft. However, this whole process was apparently going overboard in terms of consuming an employee’s after -work time. This was because, most screen checks were always done in shifts inclusive of lunch time hours (Sciarra, 2011). The whole process consumed the employee’s free time after which the company would still pressurize the employees to return to work on time. On July 2011, the above case that was taken to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada was ruled out by the judges. According to the judges, the time spent during security scanning of the employees is not supposed to be compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is arguably because of the history of theft by the employees and thus the current need for employees to undergo post-shift security checks. The complaints made by Busk and Castro about the shortened lunch period was viewed by the court as being null and void since during the employees lunch break, they were not being obliged to do any duty related to their job as warehouse workers (Sciarra, 2011). Even though Castro and Busk view the process of screenings and security checks as having intertwined with their work, Integrity Staffing Strategy still argues that the employees do not deserve to be issued with any compensation since the activity of screen checking does not coincide with the employees work duties. Legal Issues Under the FLSA as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 251-262, security screenings are not compensable. The Portal to Portal Act of 29 U.S.C. 254 (a) provides employers not to compensate an employee for activities which are preliminary or postliminary to the principal activity or activities for which an employee is employed to perform (Sciarra, 2011). In the above Portal-to-Portal Act, principal activities are inclusive of pre- or post- shift activities that are regarded as being an integral and indispensable part of the main duties and responsibilities for which an employee is employed. Under such definition, Jesses Busk et al. can legally claim that screening, which is a postliminary activity, is part of work and should be compensated. On the other hand, what constitutes work for Integrity Staffing Solutions has to do with warehouse duties, of which screening is none. Therefore, a legal standoff in which every party to the dispute seemingly has the backing of the law is the nature of the case. Nevertheless, if the court were to favor Busk’s and Castro’s plea for compensation, then the implications for such a decision would impact a large number of employers and employees at the same time. That is because many lawsuits leading to compensations are likely to be launched. It is anticipated that maintaining the verdict of the Ninth Circuit would lead to most of the companies doing away with the process of screening and security checks of the employees (Jacobs, 2004). This is because, for any company to do security checks to its employees, it would have to part away with a huge amount of money in the name of compensating its employees for no work done. This would mean that the company would have to always part away with a large sum of money in order to ensure that the safety regulation measures are up to bar and maintained (Jacobs, 2004). Most of the companies would however forgo the whole process of doing security checks in order to avoid the additional labor cost. This would indeed have an effect on the security of the work place due to the reduced workplace safety that would eventually lead to increase losses due to theft (Jacobs, 2004). For the Supreme Court of the United States, the case presents an opportunity to set a precedence that would streamline Employment Acts not only at the Federal level, but at the state level as well. This is to ensure that there is consistency within the application of rule 12 on activities that benefit employers and employees. In this case, the security checks was noted by the Supreme Court as a process that benefits Integrity Staffing Solutions. It remains to be determined whether such a benefit to an employer should be compensated through pay to employees or whether it should be treated as a fringe benefit enjoyed by employers. Decisions Besides, the District Court also found that the plaintiffs brought the case without stating a claim as provided for under article 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Under this rule, a motion of dismissal is permissible in the event that a complainant fails to seek specific relief to be granted on the matter brought before the court. Under rule 12, when a plaintiff fails to state a claim on relief, the court is faced with a legally impossible duty to grant no claim made before it. Therefore, the Nevada District Court was faced with a legally impossible duty in the lawsuits brought before it. In agreement with the court’s ruling, any employee is obliged to go along with the security checks with no compensation expected in return. This is purposefully meant to ensure that all the security measures in any business are adhered with the aim of reducing the many reported cases of employee thefts. Reasoning When the case was appealed at the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the case fell under the amended Portal-to-Portal Act. Under the amended Portal-to-Portal Act, under the FLSA, employers are obliged to pay employees for post-shift security screenings. This implied that Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. was under the obligation to pay employees for an activity that added no economic value to its operations. Depending on the time spend during the screening, and depending on the minimum wages payable, it meant that that the ruling placed Integrity Staffing Solutions at a disadvantage position where it would pay workers for an exercise that is not covered in their job description. Under such circumstance, it is likely that it would become very expensive for Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. to continue offering its services as before. Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari to the US. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Part B The case I am trying to make is to support the decision by which Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. to petition the US Court of Appeal on the lawsuit. My argument is trying to demonstrate that that under the FLSA, employee-employer relation is assessed through the prism of wages versus activities that form the integral part of their work. Jesse Busk et al.’s argument fails to answer whether the screening is part and parcel of their job description or not. Jesse Busk et al. rely on a narrow application of the FLSA and Portal-to-Portal amendment on a case whose circumstances are entirely different (Pfadenhauer, 2013). This way, I am also trying to demonstrate that he Portal-to-Portal provision that allowed for compensation of activities carried out in preliminary and postliminary are construed to be applied in special circumstances that fit within certain description of offering a benefit to the employer. Supporting compensation to Jesse Busk et al. under the current circumstances totally misses the consideration under which the amendment was made. Therefore, the security exercise can also be seen to be in the interest on employees as it is geared towards making sure that there is no theft and pilferages, thus a guarantee for job as the business would not close down owing to bankruptcy. It would be a narrow argument to imagine that the business (Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc.) benefits materially by doing the exercise. The only benefit accruing to Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. is the knowledge that the inventory remains reliable. In order to prove my case, I hold that security checks are theft prevention measures that are supported under the employee-employer regulations. Security checks, though varied in approach, objective and intention, are supposed to prevent thefts and pilferages. It is impossible to say for sure that employees did pilfer goods out of the warehouse just as much as it is difficult to argue on the contrary. Such security checks, apart from deterring possible attempts to pilfer goods, also gives the employer the confidence that the stock is safe and that movable assets are safe. In the above case, taking part in the security clearance is completely different from employees’ day-to day activities that define their job description. The exercise does benefit Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. alone, but also the entire community. That is to ensure that there is a flow of commercial activities. Otherwise, there may be a halt in commercial activities if around the entire economy; no measures were put in place to safeguard ethical relationship between employer and employees at work. Granting compensation under such circumstances would be tantamount to imposing an economic burden on employers. The repercussions would be that such a decision would affect many legal articles related to work. Both the employer and the employee must be protected in equal measure (Pfadenhauer, 2013). As long as the activity being done is unrelated to the what an employee was tasked with doing, and as long, as such an activity is seen to constitute an economic activity for the employer. The security check is merely a checking out procedure that is intended to minimize theft by employees. The fact that the activity on which the lawsuit is petitioned is not integral and indispensable part of the job description on which employees execute activities, it is should not be compensated. It should also be noted that although the Jesse Busk et al. claims and the court satisfies their claim that the postliminary activity benefitted Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc., it is important to note that it does not benefit the employer in a manner likely to constitute an entirely new economic activity. It should be noted that activities that mere causal necessity cannot constitute sufficient grounds for Portal-to-Portal Act specifications for compensation. The cases that are used to demonstrate my arguments are Steiner v, Mitchel, Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Construction Inc., IBP Inc. v. Alvarez, Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., and Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. These cases serve as precedence under the same Portal-to-Portal law and other employee-employer related laws. In Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Construction Inc., the courts did not satify the application to pay construction workers wages for time spent been screened for security purposes. In their lawsuit, case Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Construction Inc 487 F. 3d 1340, it was the determination of the court that a District Court can grant a summary judgment as long it has been determined that activities from which plaintiffs sue for compensation meet the requirements of section 254(a)(2). In the above case, employees had sued to be paid for time spent in lines as they await security clearance. I will apply this case in the petition (Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Jesse Busk et al.) to point out that there is a precedence that allows for non-compensation for activities that are not integral and indispensable part of job description (Pfadenhauer, 2013) for which Busk and others were employed. Rather, the activity just supports the principle of safety precaution against theft at workplace without necessarily itself constituting an economic activity for Integrity Staffing Solutions. Similarly, the determination in Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., employees had also sued for compensation for time spent undergoing radiation detection security checks. However, the court determined that preliminary and postliminary activities do not always benefit the employer financially. They are distinct from an employee’s job description and should not be compensated for. Besides, Steiner v. Mitchel offers a clear precedence to be followed where the Portal-to-Portal Act offers ambiguity, as is the case in Integrity Staffing Solution v. Jesse Busk et al. The Court in Steiner v. Mitchel recognized that a blind application of the Portal-to-Portal Act without assessment of the merits of a specific case would offer legal ambiguity that would lead to huge liabilities on the part of employers. The Court had also cited Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., to offer an understanding into the complex nature of cases when dealing with lawsuits under Portal-to-Portal Act. Therefore, the specific of the above laws and cases is that there can never be a rigid application that deviates from taking consideration for proper interpretation of Portal-to-Portal Act. Courts should take note that the law is not one sided, and as such, articles in the FLSA were designed for both employee and the employer. The article is sufficient and lopsided generalizations may lead to legal ambiguities in application of the law. The law has to be applied consistent with other existing pieces of legislation pertaining to terms of employment and employer’s liability. The Supreme Court should grant a certiorari in this petition. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit ruling on the matter will have inestimable economic ramifications for companies all over the United States. Departing from long-established interpretations and precedence offers legal ambiguities in the application of the law. References Anderson et al. v. Mt. Clemens Pottery CO. 328 U.S. 680 (66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515). Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Construction Inc 487 F. 3d 1340, Blenk, W. (1993). European labor courts: industrial action and procedural aspects: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of European Labor Court Judges (Paris, September 1989) on labor courts and industrial action and aspects of procedure. Geneva. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez (03-1238) 546 U.S. 21 (2005) No. 03—1238, 339 F.3d 894, affirmed; No. 04—66, 360 F.3d 274, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Jacobs, A. T. J. M. (2004). Labor law in the Netherlands. The Hague [u.a.: Kluwer Law Internat. Kim, J.H., and De la Torre, M. (2014). Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., v. Busk et al.: Labor and Employment Laws, Portal-To-Portal Act, FLSA, Security Screenings, Compensable Work, and continuous Workday. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-433 Pfadenhauer, D.M. (2013).Wage & Hour Law: A Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act and State Wage and Hour Laws. New York: Datamotion Publishing LLC. Sciarra, S. (2001). Labor Law in the Courts: National Judges and the ECJ. Oxford: Hart Pub. Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256, 76 S.Ct. 330, 335, 100 L.Ed. 267 (1956). Read More