Should Amazon Pay Workers Waiting for Security Screenings? 6th Circuit Asks SCOPA to Decide
The federal appeals court on Monday certified two questions of first impression to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, stemming from a class action lawsuit claiming that practices at Amazon's warehouse outside Allentown, Pennsylvania, violate the Keystone State's minimum wage laws.
November 05, 2019 at 02:47 PM
4 minute read
Metal detectors and bag searches are increasingly a part of everyday life. But should employers have to compensate their workers as they wait to go through security?
That's at the heart of a question the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to consider in the case In re Amazon.com. The federal appeals court Monday certified two questions of first impression to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, stemming from a class action lawsuit claiming that practices at Amazon's warehouse outside Allentown, Pennsylvania, violate the Keystone State's minimum wage laws.
Specifically, the three-judge Sixth Circuit panel asked the justices to consider whether "time spent on an employer's premises waiting to undergo and undergoing mandatory security screenings [is] compensable as 'hours worked' within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act," and whether defendants' claim that the waits are "de minimis" can bar the action.
According to Duane Morris appellate attorney Robert Byer, who is not involved in the case, it is now up to the Supreme Court to either accept or reject the case.
"They have done this with some degree of frequency. They have also declined to hear cases," Byer said.
The procedure for certifying questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is relatively recent, Byer said, and is done because federal courts are bound to apply state law.
"What the court of appeals would do is guess. Sometimes it makes more sense to simply send that to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in cases where there is no precedent," Byer said.
Whether or not the Supreme Court will take up the case is discretionary, but if it does, the court will become the fifth venue in which the case has been handled.
According to the Sixth Circuit panel's 10-page order, written by Judge Richard Griffin, plaintiff Neal Heimbach was a worker at Amazon's warehouse in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania, in the Lehigh Valley region of the state, where employees had to undergo anti-theft security screenings, including metal detectors and bag searches, after they clocked out.
Heimbach filed a proposed class action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, raising a single count under the PMWA. Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and then the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the Western District of Kentucky, which is where several cases raising state wage-and-hour claims are pending.
After discovery, Heimbach filed for class certification and the defendants filed for summary judgment. The district court tossed the case, finding that Pennsylvania would follow the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Portal-to-Portal Act amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Heimbach appealed and asked the intermediate appellate court to certify the question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Griffin said the case raised an important issue of first impression. Although Amazon had contended that the issue was of little public importance because "almost no" employers in Pennsylvania require their employees to go through "airport-style, anti-theft screening" at the end of each shift, Griffin said the question more broadly deals with whether the Portal-to-Portal Act applies to the PMWA.
"This question touches many more Pennsylvania workers and employers, as evidenced by the cases discussed below grappling with it," Griffin said, before noting how several lower courts in Pennsylvania have handled the issue.
Winebrake & Santillo attorney Peter Winebrake, who is representing Heimbach, said that, since most of the FLSA is regulatory rather than legislative, enforcement has swung wildly under the latest administration, so companies and workers are increasingly relying on state labor laws.
"It's a really important case, and it's going to give the state Supreme Court another opportunity to define the parameters of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act," Winebrake said. "It's important in my opinion for Pennsylvania workers that we are able to rely on that law as an independent source of rights."
Littler Mendelson attorney Jay Inman, who is representing Amazon, declined to comment.
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 AllSpecial Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 3Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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