The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to wade into the debate over whether online retail giant Amazon should have to pay its workers as they go through security screenings.

The high court on Dec. 27 agreed to hear arguments in In re Amazon on the first-impression issues of 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 Minimums Wage Act," and whether the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex can bar claims brought under the act.

The decision to take up the case comes more than a month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit asked the justices to grapple with the issue.

As of Monday, the justices had not outlined a briefing schedule in the case.

In early November, the Sixth Circuit certified the two questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. According to court watchers, the procedure for certifying questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is relatively recent and is done because federal courts are bound to apply state law. Although the high court has regularly agreed to take up questions that are certified to the body by federal courts, it has also been known to decline to hear cases as well, so, after the appeals court certified the issue, there was an open question as to whether the justices would agree to take up the case.

The case arises out of a class action claiming that practices at Amazon's warehouse outside Allentown violate the state's minimum wage laws.

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 in the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania, 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. "This issue concerns the construction and application of the PMWA, and its resolution is likely to affect a broad swath of workers and employers in Pennsylvania."

Winebrake & Santillo attorney Peter Winebrake, who is representing the plaintiff, said he was "delighted" by the Supreme Court's order.

"After many years of litigation, the time has finally come to find out whether the federal Portal Act's limitations on compensable time apply to PMWA claims," he said in an emailed statement. "Amazon fought very hard to prevent this issue from getting to the Supreme Court, but we never gave up because an independent and robust state wage law is crucial to Pennsylvania workers. I feel privileged to have an opportunity to argue this issue to the justices."

Littler Mendelson attorney Jay Inman, who is representing Amazon, did not return a message seeking comment.