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

A Call for Comprehensive Fee Shifting for Employment-Law Claims

By Alejandro Caffarelli, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. 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...

Read More
General

Supreme Court Bars State Administrative Hurdles for Federal Civil Rights Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday in the case of Williams v. Washington (No. 23-191) that an Alabama law requiring people to go through the state’s administrative process before filing federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision found that the law created an unfair barrier to asserting federal rights. The law, upheld by Alabama’s Supreme Court in 2023, required unemployment benefits claimants to complete the state’s appeals process before going to court....

Read More
General

Supreme Court Rules on FLSA Evidence Standards in Overtime Exemption Case

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that disputes over Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemptions do not require heightened evidence standards. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, rejected employees’ arguments for a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, reaffirming that the preponderance of evidence standard is appropriate in civil litigation unless explicitly altered by statute, constitutional requirements, or precedent involving severe government actions. The case, EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera, centered on whether a higher standard should apply in...

Read More