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