Final answer:
Based on Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc, v. Busk, the prison administration would likely argue that the time Pat spends walking through a metal detector after work is not compensable, as it is not integral and indispensable to their primary job duties.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the Supreme Court decision of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc., v. Busk (2014), the Court ruled that the time employees spent undergoing security screenings was not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Applying this decision to the case of employee Pat at the correctional facility, the prison administration would likely respond by asserting that the time spent by employees going through a metal detector is not subject to compensation since it is not an integral and indispensable part of the employee's primary duties and can be considered a preliminary activity.
The distinction in the ruling focuses on whether the security screening is tied directly to the job performance of the employees. As such, activities that are preliminary or preliminary to the principal work activities are generally not compensated. The court drew a line between activities that are part of the work of the employees and those that are for the benefit of the employer's management interests.
This situation is akin to the warehouse employees in the Integrity Staffing Solutions case who were required to undergo security screenings for the employer's benefit. The screenings were not tied directly to the employees' job duties—it did not help them in their retrieval and packaging of products—and as such, did not count for compensable time. This legal precedent suggests that it's likely that a similar standard would apply to Pat and the other employees of the correctional facility. The rationale would be that walking through a metal detector, though possibly serving a security purpose for the facility, is not part of the duties for which the employees are primarily hired to perform and as such, does not require additional compensation.