• Home
  • About
    • About Christopher di Armani
    • Disclosure Statement
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Gun Laws 101
  • FPO Violators
  • Store
  • Donate
  • Hire Me

Christopher di Armani.com

In Praise of Individual Rights and Freedoms

  • Top 25
  • Big Brother
    • Access To Information
    • Bureaucratic Incompetence
    • Bureaucrat’s Rule #1
    • Censorship
    • Feeding at the Government Trough
    • Lemonade Freedom
  • Common Sense
    • Expressions of Gratitude
    • Good Samaritans
    • Good Stuff
    • In Memoriam — Remembering our Heros
    • Life
    • Personal Responsibility
    • Politically Correct Madness
  • Courts
    • Abusive Prosecutions
    • Civil Forfeiture
    • Human Rights Tribunals
    • Judicial Corruption
    • Justice Denied
    • Justice System Abuses
    • Police Sentencing Double-Standards
    • Prosecutorial Misconduct
    • SLAPP Lawsuits
  • Crime
    • Abuse of Trust
    • Canadian Mass Murders
    • Firearm Prohibition Orders
    • Human Depravity
    • Immigration Issues
    • Racism
    • Restraining Orders
    • Sexual Predators
    • Violent Criminals
    • Wrongful Convictions
  • Guns
    • Concealed Carry
    • Dial 9-1-1 and Die
    • Firearms Act
    • Fun Gun Stuff
    • Gun Control
    • Gun-Free Zones
    • Gun Politics
    • Gun Registration
    • Negligent Discharges
    • Target Shooting Competitions
  • Islam
    • Canadian Islamic Disgraces
    • Islamic Terrorism
    • Radical Islam
    • Sharia Law
    • The Religion Of Peace
  • Police
    • Abuse of Police Authority
    • Filming Police
    • Great Police Officers
    • Officer Down
    • Police Brutality
    • Police Corruption
    • Police Misconduct
    • RCMP Accountability
    • RCMP Hall of Shame
    • Warrantless Searches
  • Politics
    • Elections
    • Ethics in Politics
    • Political Antics
    • Political Corruption
    • Social Justice
    • Stupid Human Tricks
    • Union Bay Improvement District
  • Rights
    • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
    • Constitutional Violations
    • Freedom of Assembly
    • Freedom of Religion
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Property Rights
    • Privacy Rights
    • Self-Defense
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Former Employees Win: Apple Must Pay Lost Wages for Exit Searches Says Appeals Court

Published September 7, 2020 by Christopher di Armani Filed Under: Courts


Trust is a fundamental requirement for all positive human interactions, yet Apple and many other companies routinely tell their employees the company does not trust them.

At the very least, knowing your employer does not trust you means you won’t give the employer what it deserves: a full day’s work in exchange for a full day’s pay.

Not only is this bad policy from an interpersonal relations standpoint, it also creates a toxic work environment. After the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled against them, it’s an environment Apple Inc. must must pay handsomely for creating.

While “exit searches” are common across many retail sectors, two former Apple employees took issue with being forced to wait to be searched after their shift was over.

In 2013, a pair of former Apple Retail employees in California filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc.

At issue was the unpaid time spent complying with the company’s policy of searching bags and purses of staff members before they could leave the store on breaks or at the end of their shifts.

Since this practice was part of the terms of employment and therefore part of their work day, the pair sued for lost wages as a result of those searches.

These “personal package and bag searches” are done for the sole benefit of Apple; are a uniform practice and policy in all Apple retail stores nationwide; and are not imposed on Apple’s customers.

This illegal practice and policy has been known to the Defendant for years and Apple continues to require Apple Hourly Employees to endure these required but uncompensated security checks.

For this reason, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other Apple Hourly Employees to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, penalties, interest, injunctive relief, damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

While they were suing Apple on behalf of employees nationwide, the scope of the class action lawsuit was reduced to California by that state’s Supreme Court because the U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled workers are not entitled to compensation for post-work searches under federal law.

Even for California employees, it would be an expensive proposition if Apple lost the case.  Fortunately for Apple, a federal court judge ruled in their favour in 2015.

The ruling by a San Francisco federal judge Saturday releases the company from having to compensate as many [as] 12,400 former and current employees from 52 stores throughout the state a few dollars a day for time spent over a six-year period having their bags and Apple devices searched at meal breaks and after their shifts.

A law professor who reviewed filings in the case estimated Apple could have been on the hook for as much as $60 million, plus penalties.

Amanda Friekin and Dean Pelle, the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, appealed the loss.

And they won.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said Apple Inc must pay more than 12,000 retail workers in California for time they spent going through security screenings at the end of their shifts.

A unanimous three-judge panel reversed a judge who had tossed the case and ordered him to enter summary judgment for the plaintiffs, after the California Supreme Court in response to certified questions in the case said in February that time spent undergoing security checks is compensatable under state law.

I’m surprised, to be honest.

First, end-of-shift bag searches are common throughout the retail industry since, according to the industry at least, most thefts from retail stores are by employees – hence the bag searches prior to allowing employees to leave the premises.

Second, U.S. federal law states employees are not entitled to compensation for end-of-shift bag searches – and that law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the Westlaw story breaking down the ramifications of this case are hidden behind a paywall.

Fortunately, the actual decision is not, and it is quite straightforward.

From AMANDA FRLEKIN V. APPLE INC.:

In answering the question certified, as reformulated, the California Supreme Court held that Apple’s employees “are subject to Apple’s control while awaiting, and during, Apple’s exit searches,” and therefore Apple “must compensate those employees . . . for the time spent waiting for and undergoing” the exit searches pursuant to the Policy.

The California Supreme Court reasoned:  “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. Thus, according to the ‘hours worked’ control clause, plaintiffs ‘must be paid.’”

Because no material facts are in dispute as 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, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on that legal question.

We reverse the district court’s grant of Apple’s motion for summary judgment and denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and we remand for further proceedings with instructions to

(1) grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether time spent by class members waiting for and undergoing exit searches pursuant to the Policy is compensable as “hours worked” under California law, and

(2) determine the remedy to be afforded to individual class members.

 


Apple’s “Employee Package and Bag Searches” policy, quoted from the decision:

Employee Package and Bag Searches

All personal packages and bags must be checked by a manager or security before leaving the store.

General Overview

All employees, including managers and Market Support employees, are subject to personal package and bag searches. Personal technology must be verified against your Personal Technology Card (see section in this document) during all bag searches.

Failure to comply with this policy may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

Do

  • Find a  manager  or  member  of  the security team (where applicable) to search your bags and packages before leaving the store.

Do Not

    • Do not leave the store prior to having your personal package or back [sic] searched by  a  member  of management or the security team (where applicable).
    • Do not   have   personal   packages shipped to the store.  In the event that a personal package is in the store, for any reason, a member of management or security (where applicable) must search that package prior to it leaving the store premises.

All Apple employees, including Campus employees, are subject to personal pack age [sic] checks upon exiting the store for any reason (break, lunch, end of shift). I t [sic] is the employee’s responsibility to ensure all personal packages are checked b y [sic] the manager-on-duty prior to exiting the store.

When checking employee packages, follow these guidelines:

  • Ask the employee to open every bag, brief case, back pack, purse, etc.
  • Ask the employee to remove any type of item that Apple may sell. Be sure to verify the serial number of the employee’s personal technology against the personal technology log.
  • Visually inspect the inside of the bag and view its contents. Be sure to ask the employee to unzip zippers and compartments so you can inspect the entire co ntents [sic] of the bag. If there are bags within a bag, such as a cosmetics case, be sure to ask the employee to open these bags as well.
  • At no time should you remove any items inside the bag or touch the employee’s personal belongings. If something looks questionable, ask the employee to move or remove items from the bag so that the bag check can be completed.
  • In the event that a questionable item is found, ask the employee to remove t he [sic] item from the bag. Apple will reserve the right to hold onto the questioned i tem [sic] until it can be verified as employee owned. (This will make the employee mor e [sic] aware to log in all items at start of shift).
  • If item cannot be verified by [the manager on duty], contact Loss Prevention . . . .

 

Author

  • Christopher di Armani
    Christopher di Armani

    Christopher di Armani is a freedom-loving Amazon bestselling author and current events commentator from Lytton, BC, Canada, who strives to awaken the passion for liberty inside every human being.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags: Apple Retail violates labour law, Apple violates privacy, class action lawsuit, exit searches, Lost Wages, toxic work environment

Did you find value in this article?

If you found this article useful or it contained valuable information and you want to thank me, the best way is to buy me a coffee or two.

1. Send an Interac eTransfer to author @ christopherdiarmani.net (remove spaces)

2. Send via PayPal using this link: https://www.paypal.me/ThatLibertyGuy

3. Use your credit card in my online store to support me with a one-time donation, a monthly recurring donation, or an annual donation. See these links for all the details about the thank-you gifts I offer my supporters.

Comments

  1. John Doe says

    September 8, 2020 at 7:30 am

    Well, at least so far, they haven’t killed any of their employees!

    Chicago, demonRAT run city on the other hand, had near its most violent weekend ever…. and ANOTHER young child murdered along with a dozen or so others.

    I really don’t know how Apple or any other business can prevent the ever increasing employee theft. With public schools teaching Marxism and that ‘You didn’t build that business’ (Obama) it can only get worse as respect for private property dwindles to near zero. Especially with the current court rulings, businesses will see more losses until it becomes intolerable.

    I do feel that waiting in line to be searched for who knows how long, would not be a pleasant experience and a better way would be to have professionals screen employees before hiring. Simple 15 minute questionaires that reveal a psychological profile can spot potential trouble before it starts. We used to use such in our computer business back in the 1970s with excellent results. But perhaps that is now illegal too. And of course back then, young prospective employees had mostly still been taught ethics, honesty, and morality.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to my commentaries

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Latest Tweets

Follow @ThatLibertyGuy

Christopher di Armani 🇨🇦 🇺🇸
@ThatLibertyGuy

  • New comment: Canadian Gun Laws: A Primer for People Who Don’t Know Much About Gun Laws christopherdiarmani.com/15213/guns/can…
    about 2 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • New comment: Blake Harvey’s Murder Proves We Don’t Value Children’s Lives christopherdiarmani.com/17398/police/g…
    about 2 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • New comment: All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing christopherdiarmani.com/8275/human-rig…
    about 2 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • New comment: Paul Rogan Passes: The End of an Era christopherdiarmani.com/18908/common-s…
    about 2 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • New comment: RCMP Sergeant Douglas Smith appeals conditional discharge for illegal handgun christopherdiarmani.com/2439/police/ab…
    about 2 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite

Most Popular This Week

  • All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • How did Live-Streaming Rape Become a ‘Thing’?
  • Dale Merle Nelson’s 1970 Murder Spree in Creston, British Columbia
  • Officer Down: LAPD Officer Fernando Arroyos
  • Officer Down: North Carolina Highway Patrol Trooper John Sumter Horton
  • Yvon Mercier: From RCMP Depot Trainer to Double-Murderer
  • Florida Police arrest a 12-year-old for farting. Have they lost their minds?

Most Popular This Month

  • All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • Dale Merle Nelson’s 1970 Murder Spree in Creston, British Columbia
  • RCMP Sergeant Douglas Smith appeals conditional discharge for illegal handgun
  • How did Live-Streaming Rape Become a ‘Thing’?
  • Yvon Mercier: From RCMP Depot Trainer to Double-Murderer
  • Florida Police arrest a 12-year-old for farting. Have they lost their minds?
  • Officer Down: North Carolina Highway Patrol Trooper John Sumter Horton

© 2004–2023 ChristopherDiArmani.com | All Rights Reserved

Close

Buy me a cup of coffee

A ridiculous amount of coffee was consumed in the process of writing these articles. If you enjoy my work, please buy me a coffee or two to keep me going!