Caffarelli & Associates LtD

News

2 minutes read

Supreme Court Rules Against Amazon Workers

Published

The Supreme Court today held that Amazon.com warehouse workers need not be paid for the time they spend going through the company’s mandatory security checks. The court reversed a lower court ruling for the workers, who claimed that they spent up to 25 minutes waiting to go through security lines so that Amazon could ensure they were not stealing products. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the unanimous opinion, which held that federal law requires that workers be paid for activities before and after their shifts only when the activities are “integral and indispensable” to the job they are hired to perform.
The good news for workers is that the decision did not radically alter existing law for those individuals that should be compensated. For example, in previous cases, the court has identified activities that qualify as integral and indispensable to a worker’s duties such as battery-plant employees who spend showering and changing. This time is compensable because of the toxic chemicals in the plant. The court also noted that meatpacking workers should be paid for sharpening knives because dull knives would make them less effective and affect the appearance of the product. To read the Supreme Court’s decision, click here.
If you or someone you know has not been paid for performing pre-shift or post-shift work that is integral and indispensable for work, such as putting on or taking off safety equipment off the clock, contact employment lawyer Alejandro Caffarelli at Caffarelli & Associates, Ltd.
 

Back to News

Recent Posts

Blog

The Illinois Human Rights Act Expands to Protect Employees with Family Responsibilities

Effective January 1, 2025, Illinois employers are prohibited from discriminating against an employee or a prospective employee based on the employee’s “family responsibilities.” Employers cannot make recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, training, discharge, discipline, or other employment decisions based on an employees’ actual or perceived personal care responsibilities for a family member. The law references the Employee Sick Leave Act to define “family members” and “personal care.” Family members covered by the Act include: children, stepchildren, spouses, domestic partners,...

Read More
Blog

Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Amidst Procedural Pitfalls

On June 9, 2025, the Seventh Circuit affirmed District Court Judge Kennelly’s decision in Anderson v. United Airlines, Inc., denying the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, dismissing the case. No. 24-1626 (7th Cir. June 9, 2025). If plaintiffs’ appeal had been successful Anderson would have added to a growing list of Seventh Circuit decisions regarding the viability of vaccine mandate claims in the employment realm. However, the Northern District, as affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, dismissed the case before...

Read More
Blog

A Call for Comprehensive Fee Shifting for Employment-Law Claims

Access to justice in employment law remains an elusive promise for the vast majority of American workers. While an array of federal and state laws purport to protect workers, the mechanisms for enforcing those rights are often inaccessible, rendering them meaningless. Administrative agencies and state equivalents tasked with investigating discrimination and wage violations, for example, are often chronically underfunded and subject to political erosion. As demonstrated by recent changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and National Labor Relations Board,...

Read More