Calif. Supreme Court Rules Apple Must Pay Employees For Exit Searches

Calif. Supreme Court Rules Apple Must Pay Employees For Exit Searches

Assessment

Interactive Video

Business, Architecture, Social Studies

University

Hard

Created by

Quizizz Content

FREE Resource

The California Supreme Court ruled that Apple's mandatory exit searches of employees' personal belongings count as work hours, requiring compensation. Employees often wait up to 45 minutes for these checks. Apple argued that personal items could be left at home, but the court found this ironic, citing Tim Cook's statement on the iPhone's indispensability. The ruling is retroactive, allowing employees to claim backpay from 2009. Apple can modify its policy to reduce delays but must still compensate employees for the time spent in searches.

Read more

5 questions

Show all answers

1.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

What did the California Supreme Court decide regarding exit searches at Apple retail stores?

Exit searches are not mandatory.

Exit searches should be conducted during work hours.

Employees must be compensated for time spent on exit searches.

Employees should not be paid for exit searches.

2.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

How long can the exit search process take for Apple employees?

Up to 10 minutes

Up to 45 minutes

Up to 1 hour

Up to 30 minutes

3.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

What was Apple's argument regarding personal items during exit searches?

Personal items should be left at home.

Personal items should be checked quickly.

Personal items are not allowed at work.

Personal items should be checked during work hours.

4.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

What did the court find ironic about Apple's argument?

Apple's argument contradicted a statement by Tim Cook.

Apple's argument was not presented in court.

Apple's argument was based on outdated information.

Apple's argument was supported by employees.

5.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

From when can employees claim backpay due to the retroactive ruling?

Since 2015

Since 2009

Since 2010

Since 2012