Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Frlekin v. Apple Inc.

Supreme Court of California

February 13, 2020, Opinion Filed



 [**529]  CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.—Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 7-2001 (Wage Order 7) requires employers to pay their employees a minimum wage for all “hours worked.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. 4(B).) “Hours worked” is defined as “the time during which an employee is subject [***3]  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.” (Id., § 11070, subd. 2(G).)

CA(1)(1) We granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide the following question of California law, as reformulated by this court (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548(f)(5)): ] Is time spent on the employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of Wage Order 7? For the reasons that follow, we conclude the answer to the certified question is, yes.


I. Factual And Procedural Background

Defendant Apple Inc. (Apple) is a leading personal technology provider. It operates retail stores worldwide, including 52 in California, that display and sell Apple products.

Apple requires its retail store employees to undergo exit searches pursuant to its “Employee Package and Bag Searches” policy (hereafter the bag-search policy), which imposes mandatory searches of employees' bags, packages, purses, backpacks, briefcases, and personal Apple technology devices, such [***4]  as iPhones. The bag-search policy states:

Employee Package and Bag Searches

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

8 Cal. 5th 1038 *; 457 P.3d 526 **; 2020 Cal. LEXIS 547 ***; 258 Cal. Rptr. 3d 392; 170 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P62,025; 2020 WL 727813

AMANDA FRLEKIN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. APPLE INC., Defendant and Respondent.

Subsequent History: Reported at Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 2020 Cal. LEXIS 1591 (Cal., Feb. 13, 2020)

Time for Granting or Denying Rehearing Extended Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 2020 Cal. LEXIS 1606 (Cal., Mar. 2, 2020)

Prior History:  [***1] Ninth Circuit, No. 15-17382.

Northern District of California, No. 3:13-cv-03451-WHA, No. 3:13-cv-03775-WHA, No. 3:13-cv-04727-WHA.

Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 870 F.3d 867, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15372 (9th Cir., Aug. 16, 2017)


employees, searches, bag, hours worked, exit, wage order, packages, technology, waiting, undergoing, time spent, iPhone, transportation, bag-search, premises, travel, subject to control, employer-controlled, employer-provided, includes, lunch, personal convenience, compensated, commuting, decisions, italics, courts, buses, plant, wages

Business & Corporate Compliance, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, Overtime & Work Periods, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Questions of Fact & Law, Courts, Judicial Precedent