Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: Supreme Court Holds Post-Shift Security Checks Are Not Compensable


December 16, 2014

In a case decided on December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously held the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require a staffing agency to compensate warehouse packers for time spent waiting in post-shift security lines. The packers argued their wait time, which they asserted could be as long as 25 minutes each day, should be compensated because the security checks were required by their employer and were necessary to the employer's task of minimizing shrinkage (i.e. product loss). Following dismissal in the District Court for failure to state a claim, the Ninth Circuit reversed as to the FLSA claim, agreeing with the employees. The security checks were integral and indispensable to the employees' work because the employer required the screenings to take place on the premises and because the screenings were designed to prevent theft, the threat of which arose as a result of the nature of the employees' primary work as packers of merchandise.

The Court, in reversing the Ninth Circuit, addressed the appellate court's mistaken focus on whether the security check was required by the employer. The appropriate test to determine whether an activity is compensable under the FLSA is simply whether the activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities the employee is employed to perform. The Portal-to-Portal Act – enacted to amend the FLSA in response to Supreme Court decisions holding time spent on certain pre- and post-shift activities, such as walking from the time clock to a work bench, was compensable – narrowed the definition of work by exempting two categories of activities from liability under the FLSA: (1) traveling to and from the place of performance of the principal activities the employee is employed to perform; and (2) activities that are preliminary to or postliminary to the principal activities. At issue in the packers' case was whether the required security screenings were an integral and indispensable part of their principal activities or merely postliminary activities, which are noncompensable in accordance with the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Court reasoned the security screenings were not integral and indispensable to the employee's work because the screenings could be discontinued at any time without disrupting the employee's ability to complete their assigned work: packing shipments for

While the case has caused a significant amount of buzz in the news media, the decision is hardly surprising. The Ninth Circuit's ruling that post-shift screening time is compensable was out of step with other Circuits, as well as Department of Labor regulations. (The United States argued on behalf of the employer before the Court.) The decision does, however, provide additional clarity on the issue of compensable time for pre- and post-shift activities. Employers may proceed with certain required (but unrelated to work) activities outside the workday, such as security screenings, without risking wage payment violations under the FLSA.1 But employers should be attentive to state and local wage payment laws, which may seek to address concerns of "wage theft," particularly among low-wage workers. And employers with unionized workforces will likely have to negotiate both the duration and compensation of such activities as part of the collective bargaining process.

For more labor and employment information, visit

1 The Court left open the possibility certain security screens could be sufficiently related to principal activities as to constitute compensable time (e.g., bank tellers).

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.