Security Magazine logo
search
cart
facebook twitter linkedin youtube
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Security Magazine logo
  • NEWS
    • Security Newswire
    • Technologies & Solutions
  • MANAGEMENT
    • Leadership Management
    • Enterprise Services
    • Security Education & Training
    • Logical Security
    • Security & Business Resilience
    • Profiles in Excellence
  • PHYSICAL
    • Access Management
    • Fire & Life Safety
    • Identity Management
    • Physical Security
    • Video Surveillance
    • Case Studies (Physical)
  • CYBER
    • Cybersecurity News
    • More
  • BLOG
  • COLUMNS
    • Cyber Tactics
    • Leadership & Management
    • Security Talk
    • Career Intelligence
    • Leader to Leader
    • Cybersecurity Education & Training
  • EXCLUSIVES
    • Annual Guarding Report
    • Most Influential People in Security
    • The Security Benchmark Report
    • The Security Leadership Issue
    • Top Guard and Security Officer Companies
    • Top Cybersecurity Leaders
    • Women in Security
  • SECTORS
    • Arenas / Stadiums / Leagues / Entertainment
    • Banking/Finance/Insurance
    • Construction, Real Estate, Property Management
    • Education: K-12
    • Education: University
    • Government: Federal, State and Local
    • Hospitality & Casinos
    • Hospitals & Medical Centers
    • Infrastructure:Electric,Gas & Water
    • Ports: Sea, Land, & Air
    • Retail/Restaurants/Convenience
    • Transportation/Logistics/Supply Chain/Distribution/ Warehousing
  • EVENTS
    • Industry Events
    • Webinars
    • Solutions by Sector
    • Security 500 Conference
  • MEDIA
    • Videos
      • Cybersecurity & Geopolitical Discussion
      • Ask Me Anything (AMA) Series
    • Podcasts
    • Polls
    • Photo Galleries
  • MORE
    • Call for Entries
    • Classifieds & Job Listings
    • Continuing Education
    • Newsletter
    • Sponsor Insights
    • Store
    • White Papers
  • EMAG
    • eMagazine
    • This Month's Content
    • Advertise
  • SIGN UP!
Security Enterprise ServicesSecurity Leadership and ManagementSecurity & Business ResilienceAccess ManagementIdentity ManagementPhysical SecurityRetail/Restaurants/ConvenienceTransportation/Logistics/Supply Chain/Distribution/ Warehousing

Where to Draw the Line for Standing in Line

Do Employers Need to Pay Employees for Time Spent Going Through Security Checks?

By Tao Y. Leung, Michelle Roberts Gonzales
Security check 1
January 27, 2020

Customer-facing businesses often have a host of reasons for wanting employees to undergo security screenings or bag checks at the start or end of their shifts. For retailers, it is about deterring and catching internal theft. For any other type of business where the public gathers, security checks are implemented to ensure the safety of both customers and employees. However, a recent trend of class action lawsuits are alleging that time spent going through security checks should be compensable. 

From a common-sense perspective, most would never expect such time to be compensable. After all, compensable work time typically means any time an employee is “suffered or permitted” to work for the employer – in other words, the time the employee spends actually rendering services on behalf of the employer. But historically, ordinary commute time or acts incidental to commute time have not been considered compensable.   

That is not to say that certain pre-shift or post-shift activities are never compensable. As a general matter, whether a task is compensable depends on how much control the employer exercises over the activity and whether the activity benefits the employer. 

For example, if the employer requires an employee to change into and out of uniform on site (so-called “donning and doffing”), the time is compensable.  If the employee is free to take the uniform home and arrive dressed, the time is not compensable. And while ordinary commute time is not generally compensable, some forms of commute time could be. For example, in California, where the employer dictates the mode of transportation, such time spent waiting for, and traveling on, the mandated mode of travel is compensable. 

But if the employer provides a mode of transportation that is optional, courts have refused to require such time be compensated. In Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 136 Cal. App. 4th 263 (2006), employees at Disneyland argued that because they parked in an off-site parking area and were shuttled to the park, they should be compensated for the time on the shuttle. But the Court of Appeals disagreed because the employees were not required to take the shuttle, or in fact, to even drive their cars to work. They could have chosen to walk, commute on bicycle, or been dropped off.

Even in instances where the employer arguably exercised some degree of control over the employees, such as in the case of security checks, employers historically relied on a federal legal doctrine known as “de minimis” time to defend claims that employees were owed wages for the time spent waiting for and undergoing security checks. Federal law recognizes that some amounts of time are so small and irregular that it is impractical to track or compensate for. 

However, in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., the California Supreme Court held that the de minimis doctrine is not recognized in California and did not apply to the particular facts alleged in the case. In Troester, managers, on a routine basis, spent between 4-10 minutes every day, after clocking out for the day, to close the store. Such tasks included initiating a software program to transmit daily sales, activating the alarm, locking the front door, occasionally reopening the store to allow employees to retrieve items left behind, bringing in store furniture inadvertently left outside, and, in compliance with Company policy, walking coworkers to their cars. Although the Court held the de minimis standard didn’t apply to those particular set of facts, the Court declined to decide whether the de minimis standard would “ever apply to wage and hour claims given the wide range of scenarios in which this issue arises,” such as “brief employee activity…incidental to noncompensable time, such as commute time.” 

In other words, although Troester was a clear blow to employers seeking to rely on the de minimis doctrine, it still left the door slightly cracked open as it relates to security checks. After all, a pre-shift security check could certainly be deemed an activity incidental to non-compensable commute time.          

Employer security checks do not align squarely with the facts in either Troester or the commuting related cases, however. On one hand, sometimes, they primarily benefit the employer (e.g., back checks to prevent retail theft), similar to the tasks performed in Troester. On the other hand, sometimes, they have another purpose (e.g., safety and security of the public) that does not primarily benefit the employer. Likewise, some security checks may reflect a degree of control exercised by the employer – i.e. prohibiting employees from leaving until they go through a security check. And on the other hand, some security checks may not reflect any real control – i.e. where an employee going through an entry security check is free to turn around and leave, or pursue any other activities the employee chooses before and after passing the security check.

Employers may soon receive some guidance on exactly how wide the door left open by Troester is and whether security checks, at least exit checks, should be compensable as there are several cases before the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court which address the compensability of exit security checks. In these cases, the employers required employees that elected to bring a bag to work to undergo an anti-theft bag check.  However, the time spent going through those checks were not compensated by the employer.

Regardless of how these exit search cases are decided, it is unlikely to resolve all of the questions surrounding whether security checks should be compensable. For example, the exit security check cases currently before the appellate courts concern situations where employees are able to skip the bag check altogether by electing to not bring a bag. Further, unlike pre-shift security checks where employees have some control over how long they spend in security lines (i.e. by arriving earlier and avoiding “rush hour”), post-shift security checks typically do not afford employees comparable control. And while post-shift anti-theft security checks provide a direct benefit to employers, pre-shift security checks do not.  In the case of security checks done for the general safety of all, the chief beneficiary of such screenings is the public and the employees themselves, rather than the employer. 

But if courts hold that time undergoing security screenings is compensable, then the greater issue facing employers is where the line should be drawn:  Would employers need to start compensating for an elevator ride to the office on the 25th floor? The time walking from the front door into the employee’s office? Time waiting to pass through the parking lot gate? The possible places where employees are arguably under the “control” of employers, to the same extent they are under the control of employers during a security check, are limitless. These are all answers the courts will need to grapple with should they continue to slide down the slippery slope of requiring the compensability of incidental activities not done primarily for the benefit of employers and which are “involuntary.”  

Unfortunately, the law on the issue is likely to be unsettled at least in the near term and companies will continue facing an increasing number of lawsuits until a definitive answer is provided by the courts or the legislature. Until then, employers would be wise to evaluate their own policies and practices and address any potential vulnerabilities in this evolving legal landscape.

KEYWORDS: loss prevention retail security retail theft security check

Share This Story

Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!

Leung tao h23995jpg
Tao Leung, Counsel at Hogan Lovells, heads up the firm’s California Labor and Employment Practice. Tao handles all aspects of California and federal employment law, adopting a practical, proactive approach in advising clients how to prevent, address, and resolve workplace-related challenges.
Roberts michelle h26219
Michelle Roberts Gonzales, Senior Associate at Hogan Lovells, provides employment advice, litigation defense, and internal investigations to clients in a variety of industries. She seeks efficient and effective outcomes that take into account the legal and business needs of her clients

Recommended Content

JOIN TODAY
To unlock your recommendations.

Already have an account? Sign In

  • Security's Top Cybersecurity Leaders 2024

    Security's Top Cybersecurity Leaders 2024

    Security magazine's Top Cybersecurity Leaders 2024 award...
    Security Enterprise Services
    By: Security Staff
  • cyber brain

    The intersection of cybersecurity and artificial intelligence

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is a valuable cybersecurity...
    Security Leadership and Management
    By: Pam Nigro
  • artificial intelligence AI graphic

    Assessing the pros and cons of AI for cybersecurity

    Artificial intelligence (AI) has significant implications...
    Cybersecurity
    By: Charles Denyer
Manage My Account
  • Security eNewsletter & Other eNews Alerts
  • eMagazine Subscriptions
  • Manage My Preferences
  • Online Registration
  • Mobile App
  • Subscription Customer Service

More Videos

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content is a special paid section where industry companies provide high quality, objective, non-commercial content around topics of interest to the Security audience. All Sponsored Content is supplied by the advertising company and any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily reflect the views of Security or its parent company, BNP Media. Interested in participating in our Sponsored Content section? Contact your local rep!

close
  • Crisis Response Team
    Sponsored byEverbridge

    Automate or Fall Behind – Crisis Response at the Speed of Risk

  • Perimeter security
    Sponsored byAMAROK

    Why Property Security is the New Competitive Advantage

  • Duty of Care
    Sponsored byAMAROK

    Integrating Technology and Physical Security to Advance Duty of Care

Popular Stories

Coding

AI Emerges as the Top Concern for Security Leaders

Half open laptop

“Luigi Was Right”: A Look at the Website Sharing Data on More Than 1,000 Executives

Shopping mall

Victoria’s Secret Security Incident Shuts Down Website

Laptop with coding on ground

Stepping Into the Light: Why CISOs Are Replacing Black-Box Security With Open-Source XDR

Gift cards and credit cards

Why Are Cyberattacks Targeting Retail? Experts Share Their Thoughts

2025 Security Benchmark banner

Events

June 24, 2025

Inside a Modern GSOC: How Anthropic Benchmarks Risk Detection Tools for Speed and Accuracy

For today's security teams, making informed decisions in the first moments of a crisis is critical.

July 17, 2025

Tech in the Jungle: Leveraging Surveillance, Access Control, and Technology in Unique Environments

From animal habitats to bustling crowds of visitors, a zoo is a one-of-a-kind environment for deploying modern security technologies.

View All Submit An Event

Products

Security Culture: A How-to Guide for Improving Security Culture and Dealing with People Risk in Your Organisation

Security Culture: A How-to Guide for Improving Security Culture and Dealing with People Risk in Your Organisation

See More Products

Related Articles

  • The Long and Winding Road to Cyber Recovery

    Five steps to secure your business – From the C-suite to the assembly line

    See More
  • cctv-video surveillance freepik

    Video management systems increase the bottom line and optimize security in logistics

    See More
  • Thin Purple Line

    The Thin Purple Line initiative approved by the ASIS Global Board of Directors

    See More
×

Sign-up to receive top management & result-driven techniques in the industry.

Join over 20,000+ industry leaders who receive our premium content.

SIGN UP TODAY!
  • RESOURCES
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Store
    • Want More
  • SIGN UP TODAY
    • Create Account
    • eMagazine
    • eNewsletter
    • Customer Service
    • Manage Preferences
  • SERVICES
    • Marketing Services
    • Reprints
    • Market Research
    • List Rental
    • Survey/Respondent Access
  • STAY CONNECTED
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • X (Twitter)
  • PRIVACY
    • PRIVACY POLICY
    • TERMS & CONDITIONS
    • DO NOT SELL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
    • PRIVACY REQUEST
    • ACCESSIBILITY

Copyright ©2025. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing