Apple ordered to pay California store workers for time spent waiting for bag searches
Apple has to pay store employees in California for the time they spend waiting for their bags to be checked by security officers, an appeals court ruled this week.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the ruling Wednesday, which reverses a summary judgment order in Apple’s favor, as first reported by Law.com. The ongoing case started in 2015 when a group of Apple retail workers in California filed a class action suit arguing that under state law, they should be paid if they wait for bag searches, which the company requires but did not consider on-the-job time.
California’s Supreme Court ruled in February that state law required Apple to pay employees for the time they spent waiting for a manager or security officer to search their bags — as is company policy to deter theft — after their shifts had ended but before they could leave the store. The workers said some days they ended up waiting for 45 minutes for a manager or security officer to be available to do the searches.
“Apple’s exit searches are required as a practical matter, occur at the workplace, involve a significant degree of control, are imposed primarily for Apple’s benefit, and are enforced through threat of discipline,” the state Supreme Court wrote in its decision.
However, US District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California granted Apple’s request for a summary judgment, since the company argued some of the workers who were part of the class action group didn’t bring bags or devices to work, “were never required to participate in checks,” and disputed that the policy had ever been enforced through disciplinary action. Alsup is known for his role in Oracle v. Google and his attention to detail in cases involving tech companies.
But the Ninth Circuit ruled that the facts in dispute were “irrelevant to whether time spent by class members waiting for and undergoing exit searches pursuant to the Policy is compensable as ‘hours worked’ under California law.” The district court, therefore, erred in granting summary judgment to Apple, the Ninth Circuit judges wrote in their decision. Judge Consuelo Marshall dismissed the company’s argument that the plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.
The Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to grant the employees’ motion for summary judgement on the issue of whether their time spent waiting requires compensation under state law.
Apple did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
Apple has to pay store employees in California for the time they spend waiting for their bags to be checked by security officers, an appeals court ruled this week. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the ruling Wednesday, which reverses a summary judgment order in Apple’s…
Recent Posts
- This tiny motherboard plugs in a memory slot and barely bigger than a business card — LattePanda’s minuscule MU packs an N100 CPU, 8GB RAM and can even run an Nvidia GPU
- Google is bringing back classic search, with no AI – and I couldn’t be happier about that
- Blue Origin successfully sends tourists to the edge of space again after a long hiatus
- Don’t wait for Memorial Day: LG’s C3 OLED TV just crashed to a record-low price
- Indie developers are trying to make horse games that don’t suck. It’s not easy
Archives
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- December 2011