more context

>…The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is now pending, asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether state law requires compensation.

…

>A federal district court judge ruled in favor of Apple, deciding that workers had to prove they not only were restrained from leaving but that there was no way to avoid having personal items searched.

>Apple said it could prohibit employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether but gave them that benefit. The California Supreme Court said a ban on any personal items would be “draconian.”

> >Apple said it could prohibit employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether but gave them that benefit. The California Supreme Court said a ban on any personal items would be “draconian.”

The article might leave one with the impression that the Court was saying that Apple could not impose such a ban. That doesn't seem to be the case. It's more that they are saying that Apple has not ever done so and it seems far-fetched that Apple would ever do so, and so Apple's claim that not doing so was done as some sort of benefit is not justified.

Here's that paragraph from the Court's decision:

> Apple acknowledges that the exit searches promote its interest in loss prevention, but nevertheless urges this court to view the searches as part of a broader policy that benefits its employees. Apple argues, in this regard, that it could have totally prohibited its employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether, and thus employees who bring such items to work may reasonably be characterized as having chosen to exercise an optional benefit. However, Apple has not imposed such draconian restrictions on its employees’ ability to bring commonplace personal belongings to work. Under the circumstances of this case and the realities of ordinary, 21st century life, we find far-fetched and untenable Apple’s claim that its bag-search policy can be justified as providing a benefit to its employees.5

and here is footnote 5:

> However, it is uncontroverted that Apple may impose reasonable restrictions on the size, shape, or number of bags that its employees may bring to work, and that it may require employees to store their personal belongings in offsite locations, such as lockers or break rooms. We also take no issue with Apple’s policy prohibiting employees from shipping personal packages to its stores.

> Apple said it could prohibit employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether but gave them that benefit.

What if you have asthma and need to keep an inhaler? Or one of the numerous other medical conditions that also necessitate keeping an item on hand.

The ADA obviously requires them to make accommodations.

Yeah, so what I was wondering is, if you have asthma do you get paid for the time you spend waiting to be searched?

They’re going to search your inhaler?

You'll need to bring the inhaler in a bag of some kind, which Apple will want to search.

You could put it in a pocket.

The sad thing is, this could all be solved with Apple providing their employees lockers located outside of the security perimeter.

ugh, one more reason to add to the pile of reasons to not give my money to Amazon.

Or Apple, I guess? It's not like Apple is any better; they're only now going to do the right thing because a judge is telling them to do so.

And probably 9nly in California, too.