Bag Checks and Security Screening: Paying for Exit Search Time

“Yes.” That was the Supreme Court of California’s answer in Frlekin v. Apple Inc. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1038 when asked whether time spent waiting for and undergoing required exit bag searches is paid time, even for bags employees bring by choice. In 2024, the court applied the same test to a vehicle inspection at a security gate. Any employer that screens employees on the way out should treat that time as hours worked, because unpaid minutes add up across a class.

Why is security screening time considered hours worked?

Because the employee is under the employer’s control. California’s wage orders define hours worked as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” That language appears in Wage Order 7, the order for the mercantile industry, and in nearly identical form in the other wage orders.

The two parts of the definition work separately. The Frlekin court explained that “an employee who is subject to the control of an employer does not have to be working during that time to be compensated under the applicable wage order.” Standing in line for a bag check isn’t productive work. It’s still paid time if the employer controls it.

That’s the key difference from federal law. A footnote in Frlekin noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s FLSA decision in Integrity Staffing “does not guide our analysis,” because it rested on “the Portal-to-Portal Act’s explicit classification of activities occurring both prior to and after the regular workday as non-compensable.” California has no equivalent exclusion. A multistate employer that follows the federal rule in its California locations is exposed.

What did the court decide about voluntary bags?

That the choice to bring a bag doesn’t defeat the claim. Apple argued its employees could avoid searches by leaving bags and personal devices at home. The court rejected that, finding “it is obvious that Apple’s exit searches are, as a practical matter, required.”

The court also set out how to judge control over activities at the workplace. The opinion directs courts to weigh factors including “the location of the activity, the degree of the employer’s control, whether the activity primarily benefits the employee or employer, and whether the activity is enforced through disciplinary measures.” Exit searches scored on every factor. They happened on site, they were mandatory, they protected the employer’s inventory, and employees could be disciplined for skipping them.

The ruling wasn’t limited to future pay periods. Apple asked for prospective application only, and the court said it saw “no reason to depart from the general rule that judicial decisions apply retroactively.” Back pay claims reach as far back as the limitations period allows.

Does the rule extend beyond retail bag checks?

Yes. In Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors (2024) 15 Cal.5th 908, workers at a solar construction site waited in their own cars at a security gate to have badges scanned and vehicles checked before leaving. The court held that “an employee’s time spent on an employer’s premises awaiting and undergoing an employer-mandated exit procedure that includes the employer’s visual inspection of the employee’s personal vehicle is compensable.”

The employer argued the workers were in their own vehicles and were really commuting. The court disagreed: “An employee in his personal vehicle may be subject to his employer’s control within the meaning of the wage order if sufficient indicia of control are present.” It applied the Frlekin factors directly.

Read together, the two cases cover most mandatory screening: bag and device checks, badge scans at secure facilities, metal detectors, vehicle inspections, and similar procedures at warehouses, distribution centers, and job sites. If the employer requires it on the premises before an employee can leave, expect a court to treat the waiting and the screening as paid time.

How can an employer reduce the exposure?

Two ways: pay for the time or shrink it. The Frlekin opinion itself pointed to both. It said Apple “may tailor its bag-search policy as narrowly or broadly as it desires and may minimize the time required for exit searches by hiring sufficient security personnel or employing adequate security technology.”

The simplest fix is moving the time clock. If employees clock out after screening instead of before, the screening is recorded and paid, and the claim disappears going forward. Where that isn’t practical, adding staff at shift change shortens lines, and a reasonable time estimate added to each shift is better than paying nothing. Any estimate should be based on actual measurements and documented.

The weaker defense is arguing the time was too short to count. In Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, the Supreme Court of California refused to adopt the federal de minimis rule for regularly recurring off-the-clock time, which makes that argument hard to win for a screening that happens at the end of every shift.

Why do a few minutes create so much exposure?

Because the claim is rarely about one employee. Screening happens at every location, on every shift, for every nonexempt worker who leaves the building. Five unpaid minutes a day is more than 20 hours a year for a full-time employee, and a retail chain or warehouse operator may have thousands of them.

The unpaid time also drives other claims. Unpaid minutes can push a shift past eight hours and turn the extra time into overtime. Wage statements that leave out the time can be challenged as inaccurate, and final paychecks that left it out can support waiting time penalties. The Troester employee’s unpaid-minutes claim came with derivative claims of exactly that kind. A PAGA notice usually lists all of them.

How do screening claims compare?

What should an employer do once an exit search claim arrives?

Time data and the security policy decide these cases. Gather both early.

1. Preserve the timekeeping data, the security and bag-search policies in every version, gate or badge logs, any video of exit lines, and the handbook acknowledgments for the period the claim covers.
2. Calendar the deadline on the complaint, PAGA notice, or wage claim, and check for an arbitration agreement with a class waiver and an employment practices liability (EPLI) policy with notice requirements.
3. Identify the managers and security staff who ran the screenings, and make sure no one takes action against employees who complained about the lines.
4. Measure the actual time from clock-out to exit at each location and shift, since a realistic number usually drives the class exposure more than the legal theory.
5. Talk to a lawyer before changing the policy or paying back wages, so any change is documented as a fix and not an admission about prior years.

For California wage and hour defense, the firm’s practice page explains how it handles these claims.

Exit search questions from California employers

Can we avoid paying by making bag checks optional?

Possibly, but it’s harder than it sounds. Frlekin treated searches as required because employees could only avoid them by not bringing a bag or phone to work, which the court found unrealistic. A policy that’s actually optional, isn’t enforced through discipline, and happens off the premises would score differently on the court’s factors. Few security programs work that way in practice.

Does federal law require pay for security screening?

Generally not under the FLSA, because of the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Frlekin court explained that the federal decision “does not guide our analysis” under California law. A California employer has to meet the state standard, which counts the time.

Does Frlekin apply to warehouses and construction sites?

The reasoning does. Huerta applied the Frlekin factors to a construction worker under a different wage order, and the hours worked definition is nearly the same across the wage orders. Warehouses with metal detectors and sites with gate inspections face the same analysis.

What if the screening only takes a minute or two?

It still counts if it happens every shift. California hasn’t adopted the federal de minimis rule for regularly recurring off-the-clock time. Short screenings matter most in class actions, where a minute or two per shift is multiplied across every employee and every shift in the limitations period.

If a claim targets your exit screening

If your company has received a class action, PAGA notice, or wage claim over unpaid time at bag checks or security gates, the time data and the screening policy usually decide how much of it is real. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving unpaid security screening time. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The regulation is California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 11070 (Wage Order 7). The decisions are Frlekin v. Apple Inc. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1038 and Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors (2024) 15 Cal.5th 908, both published decisions of the Supreme Court of California.

This post is general information about California employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.