Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Frlekin: Mandatory Exit Searches Are Compensable Work Time

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 6, 2026 · Updated October 17, 2026

Decision: Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Cal. Feb. 13, 2020).

Frlekin v. Apple Inc. applies California’s control test to off-the-clock security screening conducted on the employer’s premises after employees clocked out.

Apple required searches after clock-out

Apple retail employees who brought bags, packages, or personal Apple devices to work had to wait for a manager or security employee and undergo an exit search after clocking out. Violations of the policy could lead to discipline.

Employer control governed the analysis

The Court answered a certified California-law question from the Ninth Circuit; it was not deciding a jury’s damages total. For the control clause, the relevant factors included the activity’s location, degree of employer control, primary beneficiary, and discipline for noncompliance. Mandatory activity was probative, but not the only factor. Because that clause resolved the question, the Court expressly declined to decide the employees’ alternative suffered-or-permitted-to-work theory. Frlekin, slip op. at 23–24.

The choice to bring a bag was not dispositive

The certified question assumed employees brought the items for personal convenience. Apple could not turn that assumption into a requirement that an activity be unavoidable before California’s control clause applied. The Court examined what Apple required after the employee brought a bag or personal device to the workplace. That limited distinction matters: A voluntary antecedent choice did not make the ensuing controlled search voluntary. Frlekin, slip op. at 22–25.

The ruling applied retroactively

Apple asked the Court to make its answer prospective only, arguing that it had relied on Morillion for a voluntary-activity rule. The Court rejected that reading: Morillion did not say that every employer-controlled activity must be unavoidably required to count as hours worked. Apple therefore could not show reasonable reliance on settled law. The Court also declined an approach that would effectively nullify any legislatively appropriate penalties for past conduct. It applied the ordinary rule of retroactivity. That does not decide which periods remain timely, the amount owed, or whether a particular penalty is established in another case. Frlekin, slip op. at 24–26.

Key takeaways

• Map every required activity occurring before clock-in or after clock-out.
• Measure employer control, location, discipline, and business purpose.
• Do not rely solely on labeling personal-item possession as voluntary.
• Distinguish a retroactive legal rule from the separate limits on a particular recovery.