© 2024 American Payroll Institute, Inc.
California Employees Entitled to Pay While
Waiting in Vehicle at Security Gate
The California Supreme Court ruled that time employees
spend waiting for a security screening in a personal
vehicle is compensable [Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors,
S275431 (Cal., 3-25-24)]. An employee sued for unpaid time
he spent waiting at a security gate in his car and for the time
driving between the gate and the employee parking lot.
The employee was also covered by a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) that waived payment for meal periods, but
because the employee was not allowed to leave the worksite,
the Court found that the time was still compensable.
Background
George Huerta worked for CSI Electrical Contractors
at a remote solar power facility in Monterey and San Luis
Obispo. A security gate scanned employee badges entering
and leaving the facility, and guards searched vehicles leaving
the premises for stolen tools or endangered species. Vehicle
searches sometimes lasted a minute or more, causing delays
of 5 to 30 minutes for employees waiting in line to leave.
Searches could include a brief visual inspection of back seats
or truck beds or extend to searches of the trunks of cars.
The drive between the parking lot and the gate would
take Huerta between 10 to 15 minutes. The speed limit
was 20 miles per hour, and employees were not allowed
to honk horns, play music that could be heard outside the
vehicle, bike or walk between the gate and the parking lot,
or stop except for emergencies. This is to protect the nearby
endangered species. The time spent waiting at the gate and
the time spent driving between the gate and the parking lot
were uncompensated.
In addition to these restrictions, Huerta and the other
employees were covered by two CBAs. The CBAs provided
that the employees would receive a 30-minute lunch period
that was unpaid. CSI did not allow employees to leave the site
for lunch or return to their cars without special permission.
Huerta sued CSI claiming that he was owed wages for the
time spent waiting at the gate, driving between the gate and
the parking lot, and for the 30-minute meal breaks.
Court finds some of the time was compensable
Under Wage Order No. 16, which applied to Huerta,
employees must be paid for all “hours worked,” which is
defined as: “the time during which an employee is subject
to the control of an employer, and includes all time the
employee is suffered or permitted to work.”
Waiting at security gate. Huerta challenged whether the
time spent waiting for security procedures was compensable.
The California Supreme Court held that the time was “hours
worked” and was compensable.
CSI argued that the exit procedures were akin to flashing
an employee badge at the entrance or exit of a parking
garage. The court disagreed with this characterization. Unlike
the cameras and automated gates that might be found
in an employee parking garage, Huerta and the other CSI
employees were subject to visual searches of their vehicles.
These could last over a minute and might even involve
searches of the car’s trunk.
The court noted that California Wage Orders do not
incorporate the federal de minimis doctrine that excuses
employers from paying employees for small amounts of time
that otherwise are compensable but administratively difficult
to track. The court ruled that if an employee must undergo
an exit security procedure that includes vehicle inspections
causing a delay, the employee is entitled to compensation as
the time is “hours worked.”
Travel time. Next, Huerta challenged that the time
spent traveling between the gate and the parking lot was
compensable because the employees were subject to CSI’s
control. The court held that the time was not “hours worked”
but may qualify as “employer-mandated travel.” “Employer-
mandated travel” is travel that occurs after the first location
where the employee’s presence is required. There was not
enough evidence to show that the gate was actually the
first place employees were required to report. The court
held that to qualify as “employer-mandated travel,” the first
location where the employee’s presence is required must be
“for an employment-related reason other than the practical
necessity of reaching the worksite.”
Meal periods. Lastly, Huerta argued that employees
should be compensated for lunch periods because the
employees were prevented from leaving the worksite. The
court agreed. Employees were directed not to leave the
site and were prevented from returning to their vehicles
without permission. The court held that when an employee
is prevented from leaving for lunch, even if the physical
features of the worksite make leaving impractical, the time
must be compensated.
April 15, 2024 Volume 26 Issue 8
Starting with this issue of PAYSTATE UPDATE, references to The Payroll Source® and Guide to State Payroll Laws refer to the
2024 editions of the books, which are printed and available online on the PayrollOrg Bookshelf. The online versions of
The Payroll Source® and Guide to State Payroll Laws will be updated throughout the year.
California Employees Entitled to Pay While
Waiting in Vehicle at Security Gate
The California Supreme Court ruled that time employees
spend waiting for a security screening in a personal
vehicle is compensable [Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors,
S275431 (Cal., 3-25-24)]. An employee sued for unpaid time
he spent waiting at a security gate in his car and for the time
driving between the gate and the employee parking lot.
The employee was also covered by a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) that waived payment for meal periods, but
because the employee was not allowed to leave the worksite,
the Court found that the time was still compensable.
Background
George Huerta worked for CSI Electrical Contractors
at a remote solar power facility in Monterey and San Luis
Obispo. A security gate scanned employee badges entering
and leaving the facility, and guards searched vehicles leaving
the premises for stolen tools or endangered species. Vehicle
searches sometimes lasted a minute or more, causing delays
of 5 to 30 minutes for employees waiting in line to leave.
Searches could include a brief visual inspection of back seats
or truck beds or extend to searches of the trunks of cars.
The drive between the parking lot and the gate would
take Huerta between 10 to 15 minutes. The speed limit
was 20 miles per hour, and employees were not allowed
to honk horns, play music that could be heard outside the
vehicle, bike or walk between the gate and the parking lot,
or stop except for emergencies. This is to protect the nearby
endangered species. The time spent waiting at the gate and
the time spent driving between the gate and the parking lot
were uncompensated.
In addition to these restrictions, Huerta and the other
employees were covered by two CBAs. The CBAs provided
that the employees would receive a 30-minute lunch period
that was unpaid. CSI did not allow employees to leave the site
for lunch or return to their cars without special permission.
Huerta sued CSI claiming that he was owed wages for the
time spent waiting at the gate, driving between the gate and
the parking lot, and for the 30-minute meal breaks.
Court finds some of the time was compensable
Under Wage Order No. 16, which applied to Huerta,
employees must be paid for all “hours worked,” which is
defined as: “the time during which an employee is subject
to the control of an employer, and includes all time the
employee is suffered or permitted to work.”
Waiting at security gate. Huerta challenged whether the
time spent waiting for security procedures was compensable.
The California Supreme Court held that the time was “hours
worked” and was compensable.
CSI argued that the exit procedures were akin to flashing
an employee badge at the entrance or exit of a parking
garage. The court disagreed with this characterization. Unlike
the cameras and automated gates that might be found
in an employee parking garage, Huerta and the other CSI
employees were subject to visual searches of their vehicles.
These could last over a minute and might even involve
searches of the car’s trunk.
The court noted that California Wage Orders do not
incorporate the federal de minimis doctrine that excuses
employers from paying employees for small amounts of time
that otherwise are compensable but administratively difficult
to track. The court ruled that if an employee must undergo
an exit security procedure that includes vehicle inspections
causing a delay, the employee is entitled to compensation as
the time is “hours worked.”
Travel time. Next, Huerta challenged that the time
spent traveling between the gate and the parking lot was
compensable because the employees were subject to CSI’s
control. The court held that the time was not “hours worked”
but may qualify as “employer-mandated travel.” “Employer-
mandated travel” is travel that occurs after the first location
where the employee’s presence is required. There was not
enough evidence to show that the gate was actually the
first place employees were required to report. The court
held that to qualify as “employer-mandated travel,” the first
location where the employee’s presence is required must be
“for an employment-related reason other than the practical
necessity of reaching the worksite.”
Meal periods. Lastly, Huerta argued that employees
should be compensated for lunch periods because the
employees were prevented from leaving the worksite. The
court agreed. Employees were directed not to leave the
site and were prevented from returning to their vehicles
without permission. The court held that when an employee
is prevented from leaving for lunch, even if the physical
features of the worksite make leaving impractical, the time
must be compensated.
April 15, 2024 Volume 26 Issue 8
Starting with this issue of PAYSTATE UPDATE, references to The Payroll Source® and Guide to State Payroll Laws refer to the
2024 editions of the books, which are printed and available online on the PayrollOrg Bookshelf. The online versions of
The Payroll Source® and Guide to State Payroll Laws will be updated throughout the year.
