Supreme Court Rules for Amazon in Employee Searches Case

It is common practice for retailers to search their employees before they leave work. In a recent United States Supreme Court opinion,  Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, the Court ruled that workers do not have a federal right to be paid for the time spent in these post-shift employee searches. This decision will save businesses billions of dollars, including companies like Amazon, who is projected to save over $100 million.

In the opinion  the justices unanimously rejected former Amazon warehouse workers claims that Amazon and the company that staffs several Amazon facilities were not fairly compensated for their time during these employee searches, and that Amazon and the staffing company were therefore violating federal wage laws. Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, 574 U. S. ____ (2014).

The opinion of the Court centered on what constitutes a “principal activity.” Under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, workers must be compensated for their principal activities, which the Supreme Court previously described as activities that are “integral and indispensable” to the job itself.  The Court found that the security screenings at issue did not constitute principal activities, as they were not integral and indispensable parts of the job. Therefore, there is no need for companies to compensate their employees for the time they spend waiting to be searched and the time of the employee search.

Amazon’s position was that employee searches help protect against theft, and is necessary but not part of the employees’ jobs. This ruling may shield several other companies who use employee searches from facing similar claims, including Apple, Ross Stores Inc., CVS Health Corp., and J.C. Penney Co.  If the Supreme Court had decided for the workers, Amazon and the various staffing agencies it uses could have been liable for the back wages of as many as 400,000 workers, amounting to $100 million or more.

Ezer Williamson Law provides a wide range of both transactional and litigation services to individuals and businesses. We have successfully prosecuted and defended various types of business and property claims. Contact us at (310) 277-7747 to see how we can help you with your business law concerns.

Protecting Your Business from Defamation

Consumer review based websites like Yelp have grown in popularity and power. Consumer voices are often trusted, and a bad online review can have costly consequences. However, online anonymity has led to abuse, and if someone has posted an online review about your business that is false there may be legal recourse for your injuries.

Defamation is an action brought to defend reputation. It involves intentional publication of false, defamatory, and unprivileged information that has a tendency to injure or cause special damage.

One recent case involving defamation claims, mLogica, Inc., et al., v. Pankaj Karan, CA Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00342873 (December 30, 2013), shows how defamation for online activity works.  Two companies entered into a contract for the creation of some custom software. The party purchasing the software posted numerous negative reviews about the other company on its blog, and emailed its business partners and customers alleging that the software was delivered late and that the company employees were “swindlers” who “milked many of their clients of money and time.” The emails were very damaging to the company’s reputation in the industry, caused many projects to be cut, and a resulted in a significant loss of income.

While truth is an insurmountable defense in defamation actions,  the software company was able to show at trial that the software was fully functional and delivered on time. Furthermore, at trial, the defendant could not identify one unpaid vendor or defrauded customer.

A jury in Orange County, California awarded $1.23 million  to the software company for the damage to its reputation. The decision and verdict were affirmed on appeal.  In fact, the appellate court believed that the evidence supported damages of  “about $10 million. Maybe more.”

This case shows that there is a balance between preventing people from being critical on the Internet, and limiting false speech that does not promote the “marketplace of ideas.”

Ezer Williamson Law provides a wide range of both transactional and litigation services to individuals and businesses. Contact us at (310) 277-7747 to see how we can help you with any business dispute concerns you may have.