By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
In Serna v. Board of Commissioners of Rio Ariba County, a Court held that detention center employees had a viable lawsuit that they should be paid for pre-shift briefings.
Employees at the Ariba County Detention Center were required to arrive for work 15 minutes before their shift began for a group briefing. The purpose of this briefing was to discuss any issues they should know about before beginning their shift. Employees then begin their shift by reporting to their posts for a more specific briefing from employees on the outgoing shift. Detention Center employees were only paid for their scheduled working hours. They were not paid for any time either before or after the start and end of their scheduled shifts.
The Detention Center employees filed a lawsuit, arguing that these practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour law. The employees showed that the “actual” time and the “official” time in the County timekeeping program was always different. They also showed that their timesheets differed from the “actual” time in the timekeeping program. For example, one employee arrived at 7:27 according to her time sheet, but her “actual” time was listed as 7:30 and her “official” time (when she started getting paid) was listed as 8:00. The employees argued that the time spent in briefings was “integral and indispensable” to their work. The employees also argued they should be compensated for time they spent waiting for the briefings to begin—they were not free to leave and didn’t have enough time to do non-work activities, so this was time they were spending for the employer’s benefit.
The county denied that anyone had been told to report for work earlier than required. However, the problems with the timekeeping program meant that the County was not in a position to counter the worker’s allegations that it was keeping inaccurate time. The County argued that the small amounts of time were “di minimis:” small in comparison to the employee’s shift, and difficult to keep track of for all employees. The County also argued that during the time spent waiting for the briefing to begin, employees were free to “socialize, read the news, text, check social media, and relax.” For this reason, their time spent waiting was not compensable.
According to workers compensation law, The Court found that the employees had argued their case well enough to let their lawsuit continue. First the Court found that a “just and reasonable inference” from the timesheets the employees had provided was that they regularly showed up for work 15 minutes before their shift started, but they were never paid for this time. Next, the Court determined that time spent in briefings was clearly important to their jobs at the Detention Center because of the information employees received:
Knowing who is at risk of committing suicide, who had recently been disruptive, or which doors would lock is intrinsically important to the Correctional Officers’ duties of keeping staff and inmates safe. The pre-shift briefings at issue are thus compensable as an integral and indispensable element of the Correctional Officers’ work.
Finally, the Court was unconvinced by the County’s argument that briefing time was short enough to be “de minimis:”
The Correctional Officers have credibly alleged that they are required to work 15 additional minutes prior to their scheduled shifts. Because the 15 minutes is a fixed time required by the County, there is a fair argument that the analysis ends here and the County cannot disregard the time as de minimis… It is not administratively difficult to record when Workers check in.
For these reasons, the Court dismissed the County’s argument that the lawsuit should be dismissed. The employees will therefore be able to keep seeking compensation for the time they spent on the job. Those who have questions about workers’ compensation laws may consider getting help from a personal injury compensation lawyer or a workers compensation attorney consultation service.
This case is a textbook example of a wage and hour case. Some employers routinely require employees to report to work before the start of their shift for a transition briefing or other work purpose. This is permissible, but the employer must pay the employees for this time. This case illustrates a common problem regarding proof that employees face in these cases. Employees have the burden of proving they worked and were not paid for this work. The employees must do more than merely allege that this occurred. This can sometimes be difficult in the absence of time cards or other recording devices. Fortunately for employees, state and federal law require employers to keep records of the hours employees work. If employer records are not in compliance with this requirement, then the employees need only present evidence supporting “a reasonable inference” that they worked the claimed time. Here, the Corrections employees were able to supply evidence to support an inference they worked unpaid pre-shift hours but had only vague allegations about working post-shift hours without pay, so the court allowed the pre-shift claims to move forward but dismissed the post-shift claims.
**Please visit our Premium Website, for more information on The Right to Wages and Overtime***
