MANDATORY SECURITY CHECKS OF EMPLOYEES RESULT IN AMAZON PAYING $8.67 MILLION TO SETTLE AN EMPLOYEE CLASS ACTION

MANDATORY SECURITY CHECKS OF EMPLOYEES RESULT IN AMAZON PAYING $8.67 MILLION TO SETTLE AN EMPLOYEE CLASS ACTION

After a Pennsylvania court ruled last week that Amazon must pay warehouse workers for time spent in mandatory security checks, Amazon (and its staffing company) agreed to pay $13.5 million to settle the employees’ claims and pay the employees’ attorneys. Amazon argued that “employees are only paid for their labor — to pack boxes, but not to stand at a security checkpoint, which does not involve labor or toil.” Wrong answer.

The court rejected this argument, as have other State’s courts, noting that “hours worked” includes time spent waiting for, or undergoing bag checks. California, like most states, require payment for “all hours worked.” Years ago, we argued that this ‘deminimus’ time spent for the bag check at a coffee company was not work or was so trivial so as to not require payment by the employer (after all, employees can leave their bags in their car, or in the prior case we argued, in the employer-provided locker room). We settled that case for much less than these eight figure numbers but believe it when we say that the employer quickly changed the policy to avoid future class claims. And, later, California rejected the ‘deminimus’ arguments.

But, Amazon has been sued in other states for these claims too and apparently did not institute an across-the-board change. In 2014, in a lawsuit that eventually was decided by the US Supreme Court, Amazon won as against the employees, citing the federal Portal to Portal Act, where the court said that employers do not have to pay workers before or after the employee’s “principal activities” are completed. So, we will continue to watch whether the behemoth employer continues to challenge states that narrowly apply the “principal activities” arguments.

For any questions, feel free to contact Dawn: dcoulson@eppscoulson.com

Information contained in this Memo is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney. It is considered advertising under laws of some states. Epps & Coulson, LLP encourages you to call to discuss these matters as they apply to you or your business.

EPPS & COULSON, LLP
Attorneys admitted to practice in
California, New York, Colorado, Texas, and Oregon
www.eppscoulson.com