By Brent Kendall 

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled Amazon.com Inc.'s warehouse workers weren't entitled to overtime pay for time they spent in antitheft screenings at the end of work shifts, a decision that could benefit several leading companies.

The court, in an unanimous opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the workers couldn't sue to get paid for the security checks because the time they spent waiting to be screened wasn't an "integral and indispensable" part of their jobs.

The workers weren't hired "to undergo security screenings, but to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package those products for shipment to Amazon customers," Justice Thomas wrote in a nine-page opinion.

Writing in a separate concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said submitting to an antitheft screening "wasn't itself work of consequence that the employees performed for their employer."

The high court's ruling reversed a lower court decision from last year that allowed the workers' case to proceed. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the workers could seek pay because the screenings were a necessary part of the job and done for the employer's benefit.

The plaintiffs in 2010 sued a staffing agency, Integrity Staffing Solutions, which supplies Amazon with temporary workers who fill online orders. Amazon has been named directly as a defendant in other lawsuits. The workers alleged they could spend 20 to 25 minutes in unpaid time waiting in long lines to leave their shifts because there weren't enough screeners.

Other companies, including Apple Inc., CVS Health Corp. and TJX Cos., have faced similar lawsuits. The Supreme Court's ruling could give corporations a new tool to defend against those types of claims.

An Amazon spokeswoman said, "The allegations in this case were simply not true. Data shows that employees typically walk through security with little or no wait, and Amazon has a global process that ensures the time employees spend waiting in security is less than 90 seconds."

Integrity didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Apple also declined to comment and the other companies didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case had raised potentially high stakes for both sides. Mark Thierman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, estimated that hundreds of thousands of current and former Amazon workers may be affected.

Mr. Thierman said he was disappointed in the ruling and the unanimous vote against him, but said he would seek to press forward with similar wage claims under state law in California, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Washington. The Supreme Court's ruling focused on what is required by federal labor laws.

The ruling marks the latest chapter in a line of Supreme Court cases about when workers are entitled to pay for activities that take place before or after their shifts. Last term, the court ruled unionized workers at U.S. Steel Corp. weren't entitled to wages for the time they spent putting on protective gear before their shifts.

Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com

Access Investor Kit for Amazon.com, Inc.

Visit http://www.companyspotlight.com/partner?cp_code=P479&isin=US0231351067

Access Investor Kit for Apple, Inc.

Visit http://www.companyspotlight.com/partner?cp_code=P479&isin=US0378331005

Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires

Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024 Click Here for more Amazon.com Charts.
Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024 Click Here for more Amazon.com Charts.