Amazon’s security check wage and hour dispute moves up to the Supreme Court
The plaintiffs alleged that during that time they were not clocked-in and therefore not paid. The initial complaint, filed in 2010, argued that the under the Federal Labor Standards Act they should be paid during those checks.
March 04, 2014 at 05:27 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Legal troubles revolving around whether or not employees should be compensated for their time in security check lines at shipping fulfillment centers has undoubtedly been a headache for Amazon.com and its staffing agencies. Now the issue is moving all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, with the Justices agreeing on Mar. 3 to weigh in on the issue.
The case, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc v. Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, began in Nevada where temp employees at Amazon staffing contractor Integrity Staffing Solutions complained that security bag checks out of the building where taking up to 30 minutes daily, and only benefitted Amazon.
Plaintiffs alleged that during that time they were not clocked-in and therefore not paid. The initial complaint, filed in 2010, argued that the under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA)they should be paid during those checks.
Integrity attempted to have the case thrown out, but was rebuffed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which ruled that the suit could move forward.
Reuter's reports that in a brief to the court, Integrity wrote, “Security screenings are indistinguishable from many other tasks that have been found non-compensable under the FLSA, such as waiting to punch in and out on the time clock, walking from the parking lot to the work place, waiting to pick up a paycheck, or waiting to pick up protective gear before donning it for a work shift.”
Worker representatives have unsurprisingly sided with the District court's opinion, and hope that the SCOTUS will also allow the suit to proceed.
Since the complaint was filed, workers at other Amazon fulfillment centers have stepped forward with a number of suits against both Amazon and its staffing partners, alleging that they were unpaid for time spent dealing with security. A decision in this case could have wide ranging implications on how these cases and other similar cases will go forward.
To make your voice heard on this and other evolving labor and employment topics, please send up to 100 words of commentary along with your name, title and organization to: [email protected]
For more on labor and employment check out these stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Don't Rush to Change That Noncompete Just Yet, Employment Lawyers Advise
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Mass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
- 5Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
