Amazon settles security screening worker suits for $7.2M

(April 7, 2019)

A federal judge has ruled that security screening procedures do not count as compensable work time based on the Fair Labor Standards Act, which consequently nullifies state claims brought forth by Kentucky-based Amazon workers.

This judgment by U.S District Court Judge David J. Hale affects a case brought forth by workers in an Amazon warehouse located in Kentucky, alleging that employees at Amazon warehouses should be paid for time they spend passing through security checks in a wage and hour class action lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge David J. Hale likened his decision in the judgment to a high court ruling in December 2014 wage and hour class action lawsuit known as the Integrity Staffing v. Busk case where the court determined that time spent in security procedures was not considered work time that would be compensable under the FSLA.

Amazon had previously argued that the 1974 Kentucky Wage and Hour Act does not provide a definition of “work,” federal state law such as the high court ruling in the Integrity Staffing case, must be relied upon to fill in any gaps in state law.

“The plaintiffs do not have a viable legal claim under Kentucky law,” Judge Hale declared. “In [Integrity Staffing], the Supreme Court held that the [1947] Portal-to-Portal Act excludes post-shift security checks, and Kentucky courts would use [Integrity Staffing] to fill the state’s statutory void. Thus, the court will grant the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

The Portal-to-Portal Act served as an amendment to the FLSA to exempt certain activities occurring before and after set employment time from being defined as “work” in an attempt to clarify that certain activities, like security screenings before and after the work shift in this case, simply do not count as “work,” according to the judge.

“These definitions are still good law — the Portal-to-Portal Act did not change what ‘work’ was under the FLSA; it merely exempted certain activities from the definition,” Judge Hale explained. “So, essentially, the plaintiffs want this court to use the old definitions of work without applying the new(er) exceptions found in Portal-to-Portal.”

Judge Hale concluded that the Supreme Court’s [Integrity Staffing] decision thwarted the plaintiffs’ Kentucky state law claims at the same time it dispatched their federal claims.

Amazon Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit Allegations

The proposed wage and hour class action lawsuit against Amazon was filed by plaintiffs Aaron and Tina Vance who claimed they were required to undergo lengthy screening procedures in their employment at Amazon’s fulfillment center in Shepherdsville, Kentucky. These screenings were intended to deter theft of merchandise and could take up to half an hour, according to the claim.

The Vance’s case was part of a larger multidistrict litigation of other wage and hour class action lawsuit cases that were consolidated due to the similarity of the claims brought forth by other Amazon warehouse workers across the country.

The federal claims were nixed after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Integrity Staffing case. Ironically, the case itself was brought by Amazon warehouse workers who were employed through a staffing agency that contracted with Amazon. Following that ruling, Amazon asked the federal court to toss the related state claims in April 2015, which ultimately led to the recent judgment by Judge Hale.

The Kentucky Amazon Warehouse Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Amazon.com Inc., Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, Case No. 3:14-md-02504 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Join a Free Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were forced to work off the clock or without overtime pay within the past 3 years, you have rights – and you don’t have to take on the company alone.