Education
Apple ordered California store staff to pay for the time wasted waiting for bag searches
Apple needs to pay store workers in California for the hours they spent waiting for police officers to search their luggage, an appeals court ruled this week.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released its decision on Wednesday, which overturns the summary judgement in favour of Apple, as first stated by Law.com. The pending litigation began in 2015 when a group of Apple store employees in California filed a class action suit alleging that, under state law, they should be charged if they wait for bag scans that the company needs but does not recognize on-the-job time.
The California Supreme Court ruled in February that state law forced Apple to compensate workers for the time they spent waiting for the boss or security officer to search their bags — as is corporate policy to prevent theft — after their shifts had finished, but before they could leave the shop. The staff said that some days they ended up waiting for 45 minutes for the boss or the security officer to make the searches open.
Apple's exit searches are required as a functional matter, take place at the office, entail a considerable degree of supervision, are implemented solely for the benefit of Apple, and are enforced by a threat of punishment, the Supreme Court of State wrote in its opinion.
However, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California denied Apple 's motion for a summary judgement, finding that any of the staff who were part of the class action party had not carried bags or equipment to work, were never expected to engage in inspections, and challenged if the program had ever been applied by corrective action.
Alsup is known for its involvement in Oracle v. Google and for its attention to detail in cases involving tech giants.
However, the Ninth Circuit found that the facts at hand were irrelevant as to whether the time expended by class members waiting for and conducting exit scans under the Program should be paid for as 'hours served' under California statute. Accordingly, the District Court erred in awarding Apple summary judgment, as the Ninth Circuit Judges wrote in their opinion. Judge Consuelo Marshall refused the company's claim that the plaintiff's petition should be dismissed.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the case with orders to approve the staff 's motion for a summary judgment as to whether their waiting period warranted reimbursement under state law.
Apple did not respond to Thursday's request for comments.
