Amazon Workers' Suit Seeks Easier Path to Overtime Pay
A putative class action in federal court claims that workers' unpaid lunch breaks and time spent in end-of-shift security checkpoints should count toward the 40-hour weekly threshold they must reach before collecting overtime pay.
July 20, 2018 at 04:21 PM
3 minute read
Amazon is accused in a wage-and-hour suit of imposing wrongful barriers to overtime pay for 10,000 New Jersey warehouse workers.
A putative class action in federal court claims that workers' unpaid lunch breaks and time spent in end-of-shift security checkpoints should count toward the 40-hour weekly threshold they must reach before collecting overtime pay.
The suit, Vaccaro v. Amazon.Com DEDC, was brought under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law on behalf of anyone who has worked in one of the company's facilities in the state over the past two years.
Class representative Diane Vaccaro works at the Amazon facility in Robbinsville, earning $13.50 per hour as a warehouse worker, according to the suit. At the end of each shift, she and hundreds of others at the facility are required to pass through a metal detector and place personal items on a conveyor belt to be scanned by X-ray. Sometimes workers also undergo a secondary screening by a security guard.
The suit seeks to have workers paid for the time spent in the security lines, and to have that time count toward 40-hour workweek for purposes of overtime pay.
Matthew Miller of Swartz Swidler in Cherry Hill represents the plaintiffs and the putative class.
The suit was filed in Mercer County Superior Court on June 4 and removed to federal court in Trenton on diversity grounds on June 19.
The issue of end-of-shift security screenings of Amazon workers has been litigated before. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that the Fair Labor Standards Act did not give workers at two Amazon warehouses in Nevada the right to be compensated for 25-minute end-of-shift anti-theft screenings. In Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, the court found the security checks were exempt from compensation under the Portal to Portal Act.
But New Jersey wage-and-hour law doesn't have to mirror the Supreme Court's guidance on the FLSA, Miller contends.
The suit also seeks to have workers' unpaid lunch periods count toward the 40-hour workweek.
Vaccaro claims she goes off the clock for a half-hour lunch each day, but is unable to leave the facility because she would have to pass through the security line again. And because of the vast size of the facility's parking lot and its remote location, she is unable leave for personal errands, according to the suit. The suit seeks to have the meal break period count toward the 40 hours as well.
Miller said the New Jersey Department of Labor has held that an employee who can't leave the work site during lunch break must be paid for that time. He said the same rationale applies to Amazon.
Questions of law and fact that are common to class members, the complaint says, include whether Amazon's failure to pay Vaccaro and class members overtime wages for time spent in mandatory security screenings violated the Wage and Hour Law; whether Vaccaro and class members were free to engage in their own pursuits during unpaid meal breaks; and whether Amazon's failure to pay overtime for time spent on meal breaks violated the Wage and Hour Law.
Joseph Nuccio and Richard Rosenblatt of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Princeton represent Amazon. They did not respond to calls about the case.
Amazon did not respond to a reporter's email about the case.
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
© 2025 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 AllTensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
4 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Trenk Isabel; Connell Foley; Faegre Drinker; ABOTA Northern NJ Chapter
3 minute readLack of Available Auto Safety Features Does Not Equal Products Liability Act Violation, NJ Appeals Court Says
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Uber Cannot Be Held Vicariously Liable for Driver's Alleged Negligent Conduct
- 2TikTok Law and TikTok Politics
- 3California Supreme Court Vacates Murder Conviction in Infant Abuse Case
- 4New York’s Proposed Legislation Restraining Transfer of Real Property
- 5Withers Hires Lawyers, Staff From LA Trusts and Estates Boutique
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