In a significant decision for Connecticut employers, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Del Rio v. Amazon.com Services, Inc. (SC 21109) that employees must be compensated for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings on their employer’s premises. The unanimous decision establishes that Connecticut wage laws are more protective than federal law on this issue.
Link to Background Background
The plaintiffs are warehouse workers at Amazon fulfillment centers in Connecticut who were required to pass through security screenings before leaving the facilities at the end of their shifts. The security screening process took anywhere from a few seconds to as long as twenty minutes. Amazon did not compensate employees for this time.
The federal district court had granted summary judgment to Amazon, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk (2014), which held that mandatory security screenings are not compensable under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) because they are “postliminary activities” not integral to employees’ principal job duties. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Second Circuit, recognizing that Connecticut law might differ from federal law, certified two questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court: (1) whether employees must be compensated for the time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings at their place of employment; and (2) whether a de minimis exception applies, and if so, what factors should be considered to determine if the time spent waiting was de minimis?
Link to The Court’s Holdings The Court’s Holdings
The Court answered the two certified questions as follows:
First, the Court ruled that under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-76b(2)(A), employees must be compensated for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings at their place of employment. The statute explicitly defines “hours worked” as encompassing “all time during which an employee is required by the employer to be on the employer’s premises.”
The Court held that since Amazon required employees to be on its premises for these screenings, this time clearly fell within the statutory definition. It rejected Amazon’s contention that “hours worked” was ambiguous, emphasizing that the statutory language was “plain and unambiguous” and did not require any inquiry into whether the employee was actually performing “work” during that time.
Second, the Court concluded that Connecticut law does not incorporate a de minimis exception to compensability. Unlike federal law, which permits employers to disregard insubstantial periods of time that cannot as a practical matter be recorded, Connecticut’s statutory and regulatory framework contains no such exception.
Link to Practical Implications for Employers Practical Implications for Employers
This decision has significant implications for Connecticut employers who require employees to undergo security screenings, badge-in or badge-out procedures, or other mandatory activities on the employer’s premises before or after their shifts.
Moving forward, employers should examine whether employees are currently compensated for all time spent on mandatory pre-shift and post-shift activities on the employer’s premises. While this case specifically addressed security screenings, the Court’s interpretation of “hours worked” under Connecticut law may apply to other mandatory activities that employers require on their premises.
Employers operating in multiple states should recognize that Connecticut law now clearly provides greater protection to employees than the FLSA on this issue. Compliance with federal law does not ensure compliance with Connecticut law.
Lastly, Connecticut employers should take this opportunity to review their wage and hour practices to ensure compliance with this newly clarified standard. And those employers who have not been paying for security screening time should evaluate their potential exposure.