Why Time Spent in Security Screenings Should Be Paid

emporary warehouse workers in Nevada achieved an important legal victory regarding unpaid work time related to mandatory security screenings. The decision came from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that certain security checks may qualify as compensable work time under federal wage laws.

The case clarified when time spent waiting for employer-required procedures—such as exit security scans—must be paid. It also drew firm boundaries around what types of short or personal activities do not qualify for compensation.

Background of the Case: Mandatory Security Checks

The dispute arose in Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, a case involving temporary warehouse workers who were required to undergo security screenings before leaving work. These screenings were conducted at the end of each shift and were designed to prevent employee theft.

Workers alleged that the security checks routinely added up to 25 minutes to the end of their workday. Despite this delay, they were not compensated for the time spent waiting in line or passing through the screening process.

The employer argued that the security checks were not part of the employees’ principal job duties and therefore did not qualify as paid work time.

How the Fair Labor Standards Act Applies

The workers based their claims on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked. Under the FLSA, time is generally compensable if it is integral and indispensable to an employee’s principal activities.

The workers argued that the security screenings met this standard because:

• They occurred on the employer’s premises
• They were mandatory in order to leave the job site
• They primarily benefited the employer by preventing theft
• They significantly delayed employees’ ability to leave work

The Ninth Circuit accepted these allegations as sufficient to move forward, recognizing that employer-mandated security procedures can, under certain circumstances, constitute paid work time.

Why Exit Security Screenings Were Considered Work Time

The Ninth Circuit placed particular emphasis on the length and purpose of the security screenings. The court reasoned that when employees are required to remain on-site for an extended period after their shift ends—solely to comply with employer policies—that time may be compensable.

In this case, the court noted that the screenings:

• Were required at the end of every shift
• Were conducted exclusively for the employer’s benefit
• Prevented employees from leaving freely
• Created a predictable and substantial delay

Because the workers could not avoid the screenings and could not use the time for their own purposes, the court treated the waiting period as work time subject to compensation under the FLSA.

What the Court Did Not Consider Paid Time

While the workers succeeded on the exit-screening claim, the court rejected other requests for compensation. Specifically, the employees sought pay for time spent walking to lunch areas and for a brief five-minute security check before lunch.

The Ninth Circuit denied these claims for two key reasons.

Lunch Walk Time Was Not Job-Related

The court ruled that walking to and from lunch areas did not directly support the workers’ core warehouse duties. Because the activity was personal in nature and not integral to job performance, it did not qualify as compensable work time.

This analysis was also guided by the Portal-to-Portal Act, which excludes certain preliminary and postliminary activities—such as ordinary walking—from paid time.

The De Minimis Rule and Short Security Checks

The court also addressed the five-minute security screening that occurred before lunch breaks. Here, the judges applied the de minimis doctrine, which allows employers to disregard trivial amounts of time that are administratively difficult to track.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that a one-way, five-minute delay was too short to require compensation. In contrast to the 25-minute end-of-shift delay, this brief screening did not meaningfully interfere with employees’ personal time.

The distinction was clear: duration matters. Short, infrequent interruptions may be ignored, while longer, routine delays may require pay.

Why This Decision Still Matters Today

This ruling provides valuable guidance for both employers and employees. It clarifies that not all time spent on employer premises is compensable—but also confirms that employers cannot require lengthy, mandatory procedures without pay.

For employers, the decision highlights the importance of evaluating workplace practices that delay employees after shifts end. For employees, it reinforces the right to be compensated for time spent complying with employer-mandated procedures that primarily benefit the business.

Key Factors Courts Consider When Time Becomes Paid Work

Based on the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, security-related time is more likely to be compensable when:

• The activity occurs at the workplace
• It is mandatory to complete or exit a shift
• It primarily protects employer assets
• It prevents employees from leaving freely
• It creates a substantial and routine delay

When these elements are present, courts are more likely to treat the time as paid work under the FLSA.

Quick Guide: Paid vs. Unpaid Time

Likely Paid Time

• Mandatory exit security screenings lasting 25 minutes
• Procedures required to leave work
• Activities performed for employer benefit

Likely Unpaid Time

• Walking to lunch or break areas
• One-way security checks lasting only a few minutes
• Activities considered personal or de minimis

Compliance Tips for Employers

To reduce disputes and improve compliance, employers should consider:

• Clearly defining job-related duties
• Placing time clocks near required security checkpoints
• Accurately tracking time spent in mandatory screenings
• Training HR and management on wage-and-hour rules
• Reviewing de minimis limits regularly
• Explaining security procedures transparently

Clear policies and proper timekeeping not only reduce legal risk but also improve employee morale and trust.

Final Takeaway

Nevada warehouse workers challenged unpaid duty time—and partially won. The Ninth Circuit confirmed that job-linked, employer-benefiting security screenings may count as paid work time, especially when they significantly delay employees after their shifts end. At the same time, the court reaffirmed that short, personal, or incidental activities remain unpaid.

The message is clear: when employer policies meaningfully intrude on employee time, compensation may be required. This decision continues to shape how companies nationwide evaluate security procedures and wage compliance.