Updated February 4, 2026
California Unpaid Security Checks
Are you standing in line for California unpaid security checks at the end of your shift while the clock has already stopped? You're not alone. Retail employee bag checks are common, legal, and designed to deter internal theft, with policies covering about 42% of retailers. These checks, often done at the exit by supervisors, must be reasonable and, in some jurisdictions like California, conducted on the clock. They usually entail searching bags, purses, or lockers for unpurchased merchandise.
After the landmark Apple bag check case, California law has shifted dramatically in favor of employees. Despite what your employer might tell you, these mandatory security procedures often qualify as compensable work time under state law.
For many California workers, this means you could be owed significant back pay – potentially hundreds or even thousands of dollars. The courts have ruled clearly on this issue: when your employer controls your time, they must pay for it.
This guide explains everything your employer isn't telling you about California unpaid security checks, how recent court decisions affect your rights, and what steps you can take if you believe you're owed compensation. We'll walk through the legal requirements, explain the multi-factor test courts use to determine compensable time, and outline exactly what you need to know for 2026 and beyond.
What the Apple Bag Check Case Revealed
The 2013 Apple bag check lawsuit became a watershed moment for California employee rights. What started as a simple class action by frustrated retail workers ultimately reshaped how courts interpret compensable time throughout the state.
How the case started
The case began in 2013 when Apple retail employees filed a class action lawsuit challenging the company's mandatory bag check policy. These employees were required to undergo security screenings after clocking out, creating an uncomfortable situation where they worked without pay. The screenings typically took between 5-15 minutes, amounting to approximately one hour of unpaid time per week.
Some workers reported waiting up to 30 minutes for their bags to be checked, potentially losing about $1,500 in unpaid wages annually. Apple's defense relied heavily on choice—arguing employees could simply avoid the checks by not bringing personal belongings to work.
Initially, a California district court sided with Apple in 2015, ruling that "plaintiffs could freely choose to avoid Apple's control during the searches by declining to bring a bag". However, the employees appealed this decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which subsequently asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter.
Why the court ruled in favor of employees
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Apple in 2020, creating a clear distinction between federal and state standards. Unlike the federal Fair Labor Standards Act interpretation, which doesn't require compensation for security screenings (as established in the Integrity Staffing Solutions case), California's wage and hour laws focus more broadly on employer control.
The court rejected Apple's argument that bag checks were optional since employees theoretically could choose not to bring bags to work. This dismissal highlighted a key distinction in California labor law—the definition of "hours worked" includes time when an employee is "subject to the control of an employer," regardless of whether active work is being performed.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that expecting employees not to bring personal belongings to work was impractical. This realistic assessment of workplace dynamics ultimately tipped the scales in employees' favor.
The role of employee control in the decision
The concept of "control" became the central pillar of the California Supreme Court's decision. The court identified three specific ways Apple controlled its employees during security checks:
Threat of discipline – Apple required employees to comply with the bag search policy or face consequences up to and including termination
Physical confinement – Employees were confined to the premises as they waited for and underwent exit searches
Mandatory supervised tasks – Workers had to perform specific actions like locating a manager, opening bags, moving items, and presenting technology cards for verification
The court stated plainly: "Applying a strictly textual analysis, Apple employees are clearly under Apple's control while awaiting, and during, the exit searches". Notably, the court dismissed Apple's argument that compensable activities must be "required" and "unavoidable," pointing out that these words don't appear in the control clause of California's wage orders.
As a result of the ruling, Apple agreed to a $30.5 million settlement in 2022 to compensate approximately 15,000 retail workers affected by the unpaid security checks. Beyond the immediate financial impact, the case established a precedent that continues to guide California workplace practices today.
Understanding California’s Definition of 'Hours Worked'
California's approach to defining compensable work time stands apart from most other states in the country. This distinction creates both opportunities and confusion for employees dealing with unpaid security checks.
How California law differs from federal law
California labor standards significantly exceed federal requirements when it comes to defining "hours worked." Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), compensable time primarily focuses on activities that are "integral and indispensable" to an employee's principal activities.
The key distinction lies in California's broader definition. While federal law requires activities to be essential to job duties, California instead emphasizes employer control as the determining factor. According to California's Wage Orders, "hours worked" includes "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."
This control-based standard means activities like security checks can be compensable in California even when federal courts might rule otherwise. Essentially, when your movements are restricted by your employer—even after clocking out—you may still be on compensable time under California law.
The importance of employer control
The concept of "control" serves as the cornerstone of California's wage and hour framework. California courts typically consider several aspects when evaluating employer control:
- Physical restrictions – Is the employee free to leave or must they remain in a specific location?
- Activity limitations – Is the employee directed to perform specific tasks or behaviors?
- Disciplinary consequences – Would failing to comply result in termination or other penalties?
What matters most isn't whether you're actively performing your primary job duties, but rather if your employer maintains authority over your time and movements.
Consider this practical example: If you're required to stand in line and wait for a security check before leaving, that waiting time becomes compensable because you're effectively under your employer's control. You cannot freely choose to skip the check without facing potential disciplinary action.
Additionally, courts recognize that mandatory security procedures primarily benefit employers rather than employees. This further strengthens the argument that such time should be compensated, particularly when the employer could implement more efficient procedures to reduce wait times.
Examples of compensable vs. non-compensable time
Understanding what qualifies as compensable time can help you identify when you should be paid for security checks:
Generally compensable under California law:
- Mandatory bag checks after clocking out
- Waiting in line for security screenings
- Time spent waiting for a manager to conduct a check
- Exit inspections where you must demonstrate you aren't taking company property
- Security procedures applied to all employees regardless of whether they bring bags
Potentially non-compensable:
- Completely voluntary security checks (though truly "voluntary" checks are rare)
- Minimal security measures that take just seconds to complete
- Checks that occur during regular paid work hours
- Situations where employees have genuine alternatives to avoid the checks
The distinction often comes down to the degree of control exercised. For instance, if an employer creates a separate, faster exit for employees without bags, but still requires those with bags to undergo checks, the check time may still be compensable because bringing personal items to work is considered a reasonable expectation rather than a true choice.
Consequently, many California employers have modified their security practices following recent court decisions, either by paying employees for security check time or redesigning procedures to minimize wait times.
The Multi-Factor Test: When Is Time Compensable?
Courts evaluate California unpaid security checks through a structured multi-factor test that determines when time becomes compensable. This test offers a framework for both employees and employers to understand their rights and obligations.
1. Is the activity mandatory?
The mandatory nature of an activity plays a crucial role in determining compensability. Courts examine whether employees have genuine choice or are required to participate. Specifically, activities that employees must perform—even after clocking out—often qualify as compensable time.
For security checks to be truly optional, employees must face no negative consequences for declining to participate. Accordingly, when employers require compliance with security protocols under threat of discipline, this factor strongly favors compensability.
Courts have clarified that "voluntary" doesn't simply mean theoretical choice. Even when employers argue that bringing bags to work is optional (thus making security checks avoidable), courts recognize that carrying personal items is a practical necessity in modern life.
2. Where does the activity take place?
Location significantly influences compensation requirements. Activities occurring on employer premises typically favor compensability, while those off-site may not.
First, when security checks take place at the workplace before employees can leave, courts view this as a strong indicator of employer control. In contrast, activities occurring outside the workplace or during commuting time are usually not compensable unless specific exceptions apply.
Moreover, courts consider whether the employee is confined to the employer's premises during the activity. Physical confinement while awaiting security checks creates "sufficient indicia of control" to convert that time into compensable work time.
3. Who benefits from the activity?
Courts examine whether the activity primarily benefits the employer or employee. Security checks predominantly serve employer interests by preventing theft and protecting assets.
Unlike optional benefits that primarily serve employees (such as voluntary shuttle services), security checks fundamentally protect the employer's property and interests. This distinction leads courts to view such activities as compensable when they primarily benefit the business rather than the worker.
4. Is the activity enforced by discipline?
Enforcement through disciplinary measures strongly suggests compensable time. When employees face potential termination or other penalties for non-compliance with security protocols, courts view this as evidence of employer control.
The presence of disciplinary consequences transforms seemingly optional activities into de facto requirements. Thus, security check policies that include potential discipline for non-compliance typically create compensable time under California law.
5. How much control does the employer have?
The degree of employer control remains the decisive factor in determining compensable time. Courts consider whether employees must:
- Remain in specific locations
- Perform particular actions (like opening bags)
- Submit to employer supervision
- Follow detailed procedures
Even seemingly minimal control can create compensable time if employees cannot use the time freely for their own purposes. Ultimately, when employers dictate how employees spend their time—whether actively working or not—compensation is typically required under California's control-based standard.
Why Security Checks Are Now Considered Work Time
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court definitively ruled that time spent in security checks on employer premises must be paid to hourly workers. This landmark decision solidifies security checks as compensable work time, fundamentally changing how employers must handle exit procedures.
Security checks as employer-controlled activities
The core principle behind this ruling rests on employer control. When employees must wait in line for security checks, they remain under their employer's authority—even after clocking out. The California Supreme Court emphasized that "an employee who is subject to the control of an employer does not have to be working during that time to be compensated".
What matters most is not whether employees are actively performing job duties, but instead the "degree of control exerted over the worker". The court identified several factors that establish employer control during security checks:
- Confinement to employer premises while awaiting inspection
- Requirement to perform specific tasks (showing badges, rolling down windows)
- Submitting to visual or physical inspection of vehicles
- Facing potential disciplinary action for non-compliance
Impact on employees who bring personal items
The ruling explicitly protects employees who bring personal items to work. Previously, some employers argued that security checks were optional because employees could theoretically avoid them by not bringing bags or vehicles. The courts have rejected this argument, recognizing that bringing personal items is a practical necessity.
Even when security checks occur while employees are in personal vehicles, that fact "does not necessarily transform that time into commuting time". Indeed, the courts have acknowledged that personal items like phones are "so pervasive in modern life that employees have little true choice" about bringing them to work.
How long these checks typically take
These mandatory security procedures often create significant wait times. Employees report security checks typically taking 5 to 20 minutes depending on manager or security guard availability. At some facilities, workers face even longer delays—between 10 to 15 minutes traveling between security gates and parking lots, plus an additional 5 to 30 minutes for the actual security inspection.
The ruling especially affects workers in construction, mining, and other industries where employers conduct thorough entry and exit searches. For many California employees, these previously unpaid minutes now represent recoverable wages under the state's labor laws.
What This Means for Employers and Employees
The recent court rulings on California unpaid security checks have created sweeping financial implications for businesses throughout the state. Companies face potential liability while employees gain new paths to compensation.
Retroactive liability explained
Critically, the California Supreme Court's decision applies retroactively. Employers who failed to pay for security check time face liability for past practices. Even companies that modify their current policies remain responsible for previous unpaid time. This retroactive application means businesses may owe substantial back wages to current and former employees.
Industries most affected
Construction, mining and retail businesses feel the greatest impact from these rulings. These sectors commonly conduct thorough entry and exit searches to prevent theft and verify employee identity. Likewise, healthcare organizations, government agencies, financial institutions, and utility companies often implement rigorous security protocols, placing them at heightened risk for wage claims.
Steps employers should take to comply
Businesses must immediately evaluate all unpaid activities that could relate to work. Legal experts advise companies to:
- Review workplace layouts to minimize exit times
- Reduce control imposed during security procedures
- Avoid restricting employee movement during meal periods
What employees can do if they weren't paid
Hourly workers who underwent unpaid security checks can pursue several remedies. They may recover missing wages, benefits, overtime pay, and equal amounts in liquidated damages. Those with incorrect paystubs can receive penalties of $50-$100 per paycheck (up to $4,000 per employee). Furthermore, employees forced to remain on-site during breaks can claim an additional hour of pay for each violation.
Conclusion
California's approach to security checks has fundamentally shifted in favor of employees. While your employer might still claim these checks are not compensable, the law clearly states otherwise. The landmark Apple case and subsequent 2024 California Supreme Court ruling have established unequivocally that time spent under employer control must be paid—regardless of whether you're actively performing job duties.
Undoubtedly, many workers throughout California continue to perform unpaid security checks daily. This reality affects thousands across retail, construction, healthcare, and various other industries where security protocols remain standard practice. Therefore, understanding your rights becomes essential to ensuring fair compensation.
The distinction between federal and California labor laws creates significant differences in how security check time is treated. Though federal standards might not require payment for these activities, California's emphasis on employer control provides stronger protections for workers. Accordingly, when your movements are restricted and you face potential disciplinary action for non-compliance, that time generally qualifies as compensable.
Perhaps most importantly, employers face retroactive liability for past unpaid security checks. This means you might be entitled to back wages even if your employer has since changed their policies. Additionally, depending on your situation, you could recover penalties for incorrect paystubs and meal break violations.
The courts have rejected the argument that security checks are optional because employees could theoretically avoid bringing personal items to work. Instead, judges recognized the practical reality that personal belongings are necessary in modern life. Consequently, the "choice" to avoid security checks by leaving all personal items at home is not considered a genuine choice at all.
Rather than continuing to endure unpaid time, take action to protect your rights. Whether through discussing the issue with your employer, contacting the California Labor Commissioner's Office, or consulting with an employment attorney, you have options for addressing unpaid security check time. After all, when your employer controls your time, California law is clear—they must pay for it.
References
[1] – https://www.governing.com/workforce/workers-must-be-paid-for-time-spent-on-security-checks
[2] – https://www.hrdive.com/news/court-approves-apples-30m-worker-settlement/630114/
[3] – https://www.cobalt.io/blog/industries-most-affected-by-security-breaches
[4] – https://shawlawgroup.com/2020/02/california-supreme-court-apples-employee-bag-checks-are-hours-worked/
[5] – https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/no-pay-for-security-checks-supreme-court.html
[6] – https://www.schneiderwallace.com/media/california-supreme-court-rules-unpaid-time-at-security-checks-is-illegal/
[7] – https://ncbeonline.com/workers-must-be-paid-for-security-stops-california-high-court-rules/
[8] – https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/alerts/2024/4/california-supreme-court-exit-security-checks-in-personal-vehicles-are-compensable/
[9] – https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2024/04/california-supreme-court-clarifies-what-qualifies
[10] – https://knowledge.dlapiper.com/dlapiperknowledge/globalemploymentlatestdevelopments/2024/compensable-hours-worked-further-defined-by-california-supreme-court
[11] – https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/sound-the-alarm-what-california-s-latest-bag-check-case-means-for-you.html
[12] – https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2020/02/california-supreme-court-holds-apple-must-pay-employees-for-time-spent-during-exit-searches/
[13] – https://www.forthepeople.com/blog/ca-supreme-court-rules-workers-must-be-paid-waiting-security-checks/
