Apple has to pay employees for waiting time
Apple has to pay employees for waiting time

This week, the appeals court ruled that Apple must pay store employees in California for time they spend waiting for security guards to search their luggage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published the ruling that overturned a brief ruling in favor of Apple. This is the first time Law.com has reported.

The ongoing case began in 2015 when a group of employees at an Apple retail store in California filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that state law requires them to wait to look for company-ordered luggage that doesn't take business hours into account and get paid. .

The California Supreme Court ruled in February that the law requires Apple to pay employees for the time they spend waiting for security guards to search their luggage after their shift and before leaving the store. It is the company's policy to prevent theft.

The workers said: We sometimes wait 45 minutes for the security guards to prepare for the search.

The state Supreme Court wrote in its ruling: In effect, inspections must be conducted by Apple during the time of departure. Inspections are required in the workplace, require a great deal of scrutiny, are mostly for Apple, and are subject to disciplinary threats.

However, US District Court judge in Northern California, William Allsopp, approved Apple's proposal for an urgent decision.

Apple said: Some of the employees who participated in the class-action suit did not bring handbags or equipment to work and never had to attend the inspections. The company opposes the implementation of policies through disciplinary action.

However, the Ninth Circuit decided that the facts in question had nothing to do with the following facts: Under California law, time store members wait to be screened and retain protection, and can be paid in business hours.

The 9th Circuit Judge wrote in the ruling: The District Court issued a brief ruling against Apple that was faulty, and Judge Conslo Marshall rejected the company's argument that the plaintiff should be dismissed.

The Ninth Circuit reinstated the case and required them to accept the employee's summary judgment based on the waiting time required by state law.


Previous Post Next Post