In a case brought against an Amazon warehousing contractor in Nevada by its employees, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that employers do not have to compensate workers for time spent in security screenings after their work shifts.
Employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., sued the company, claiming that they should have been paid for the roughly 25 minutes they spent each day before leaving the warehouse to wait in line and undergo mandatory security screenings intended to prevent employee theft. Integrity Staffing provides warehouse staffing services for online retail giant Amazon throughout the United States.
In a 9-0 opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on behalf of the court that, because the screenings were not the principal activity that the workers were employed to perform and were not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ duties, they did not require compensation.
The court’s opinion also rejected the employees’ argument that the company could have taken steps to minimize the time required for the screenings, stating, “The fact that an employer could conceivably reduce the time spent by employees on any preliminary or postliminary activity does not change the nature of the activity or its relationship to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform.”
In responding to the decision, Amazon disagreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that the required security screenings took 25 minutes to complete.
“The allegations in this case were simply not true,” said Kelly Cheeseman, a spokesperson for Amazon. “Data shows that employees typically walk through security with little or no wait, and Amazon has a global process that is designed to ensure the time employees spend waiting in security is less than 90 seconds.”
Stephen Amato, a member at McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, said for the most part, the ruling preserves what has become the status quo in most workplaces.
“It’s more a sigh of relief for these businesses than something that is going to change their business practices,” Amato said. “By and large, employers are not paying people for these types of activities right now. ... The question is, will the employers try to herd more activities into postliminary and preliminary status? That remains to be seen.”