Skip to main content

A worker sorts packages at the Amazon warehouse in Leipzig.

Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Amazon.com’s bid to avoid a lawsuit seeking to ensure that warehouse workers for the e-commerce giant get paid for the time it takes them to go through extensive post-shift security screenings.

The justices, on the first day of their new term, turned away an appeal by Amazon and a contractor of a lower court ruling reviving the workers’ claims under Nevada state law. The decision comes five years after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case that barred similar claims under federal law.

A group of Amazon warehouse workers who package and ship merchandise filed a proposed class action lawsuit in 2010 against the contractor, Integrity Staffing Solutions, which provides some of the hourly employees for Amazon.

Story continues below advertisement

The workers sought compensation for submitting to what they called mandatory “post-9/11 type of airport security” screenings that are aimed at preventing employee theft. The workers have said the screening takes around 25 minutes to complete.

Amazon called the plaintiffs’ description of the protocol “grossly inaccurate” in court papers.

In its 2014 ruling in the case, the Supreme Court decided that under a 1947 law that amended the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, companies do not have to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks.

The workers subsequently pressed their allegations under state law and added Amazon as a defendant. The case was consolidated with similar ones in federal court in Kentucky.

A judge there dismissed the case, citing the 2014 Supreme Court ruling, since Nevada wage laws track their federal counterparts. The Cincinnati, Ohio-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018 overturned that decision.

Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter