Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—MINIMUM WAGE—7th Cir.: State minimum wage law pre-shift compensation issue certified to Illinois Supreme Court, (Jul 9, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Amazon’s warehouses operate 24 hours a day and employ more than 20,000 workers in Illinois alone.

In a case in which two employees alleged that Amazon violated federal and Illinois wage laws by failing to pay them and other warehouse workers for time spent in mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings, the Seventh Circuit has certified to the Illinois Supreme Court the question whether the Illinois Minimum Wage Law integrates the Portal-to-Portal Act’s limitations on pre-shift compensation. “No Illinois decision squarely addresses” the issue, the federal appeals court found. “Certification respects federalism and ensures a definitive answer to this dispositive issue” (Johnson v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 24-1028 (7th Cir. July 8, 2025)).

Distribution warehouses. To fulfill orders made via Amazon.com, Amazon owns and operates large distribution warehouses across the country. The warehouses operate 24 hours a day and employ more than 20,000 workers in Illinois alone.

Hourly, non-exempt workers. The two employees in the case, in turn, both previously worked for Amazon in Illinois warehouses. They both held hourly, non-exempt positions that included moving, stacking, and loading packages.

Pandemic and COVID screenings. After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Amazon required that all hourly, non-exempt employees undergo COVID medical “screenings” prior to clocking in. Employees formed a line at the entrance to the warehouse and underwent a brief examination. This included temperature checks and symptom-screening questions. If the employee passed the exam, they were given a mask and only then permitted to clock in.

10 to 15 minutes. The two workers allege that these uncompensated pre-shift COVID screenings took an average of 10 to 15 minutes, sometimes longer. The screenings also occasionally allegedly prevented one of the two employees from clocking in until after her scheduled start time, resulting in a further loss of wages.

Lawsuit. The two employees sued Amazon, claiming the screening time should have been compensable because employees were required to be on the premises, the screenings were necessary to their work, and the screenings were undertaken primarily for the benefit of Amazon and its customers to keep its fulfillment centers and distribution centers operational. By sustaining a safe workplace, they alleged, Amazon was able to comply with the law and to continue operations during the pandemic, earning profits, and building its business during a time through which many other businesses struggled.

Dismissed. Amazon moved to dismiss, and the district court granted its motion in full. The district court held that the FLSA claims were barred by the Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA), which generally excludes from compensable time employee activities that are “preliminary to or postliminary to” employees’ principal work activities. 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(2). The district court found that the COVID screenings fell into the preliminary activity exclusion and were not compensable because they were not “integral and indispensable” to the workers’ principal activities of “moving boxes, stacking packages, and loading boxes.”

Though the district court recognized that the screenings enhanced worker safety and improved Amazon’s efficiency, it ultimately concluded that the screenings were not essential to overall operations or to employees carrying out their duties as warehouse workers.

IMWL claims. The district court summarily concluded that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) claims necessarily failed along with the FLSA claims. It noted that state and federal courts frequently look to case authority interpreting and applying the FLSA for guidance in interpreting IMWL, and it further recognized that a number of district courts, and even the Seventh Circuit on one occasion, had previously applied the PPA’s exclusions to IMWL claims.

Appeal. The workers timely appealed, challenging dismissal of the IMWL claims alone, and the Seventh Circuit had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

Given the lack of state court authority, the employees sought certification to the Illinois Supreme Court the question of whether the IMWL incorporates the limitations of the PPA. Alternatively, they asked that the appeals court reach the merits of the statutory interpretation question and affirmatively hold that the IMWL does not include the PPA’s exclusions. Amazon argued that certification is unnecessary because existing federal and state authority support the district court’s conclusion.

Federal law not necessarily controlling. The Seventh Circuit observed that a general practice of looking at federal authority under the FLSA to interpret the IMWL does not require that the IMWL and FLSA be read identically in every case. Indeed, because of the FLSA’s savings clause, “federal law does not preempt the state law if the latter is more generous,” and an employer can run afoul of state wage law for practices that do not otherwise violate federal law. Illinois courts, moreover, have recognized that, although federal law may be instructive authority in interpreting the FLSA, it is not necessarily controlling where the statutory language is different. “It is thus not dispositive,” the Seventh Circuit observed, “to say that the statutory overtime provisions are parallel and that courts generally look to federal standards to interpret the IMWL. Instead, where the statutory language is different—the PPA’s exclusions are not in the IMWL—federal authority is persuasive at best but not controlling.”

Certification appropriate. The appeals court found that the applicable factors all weighed in favor of certification. First, whether the IMWL incorporates the PPA’s preliminary and postliminary activities exclusion was unresolved, and the Seventh Circuit was uncertain how the Illinois Supreme Court would decide the issue given the competing authorities and plausible arguments on both sides. “The absence of any Illinois authority remotely on point,” the appeals court observed, “including any intermediate appellate authority, cautions us against guessing how the Illinois Supreme Court would resolve the question in the first instance.”

Vital public concern and likely to recur. The remaining factors likewise weighed in favor of certification. “The question is of vital public concern and is likely to recur,” said the appeals court. “Whether an employee’s IMWL wage claim for mandatory pre-shift activities like Amazon’s medical screenings fall under the PPA’s exclusions, or a more expansive state law standard, is of profound significance to workers and employers in Illinois.” And here, “Amazon alone has tens of thousands of warehouse workers in Illinois, and there are likely thousands of other similarly situated employees across numerous other industries that have been required to participate in pre-shift activities on their employer’s premises.” Until the issue is resolved, “workers will likely continue to bring suits raising the same question.”

Dispositive of plaintiffs’ claims. Additionally, said the appeals court, whether the preliminary/postliminary activity exclusions under the PPA apply to the IMWL is dispositive of the plaintiffs’ claims. The employees conceded on appeal that their FLSA claims fail because of the PPA’s preliminary activity exclusion, and if the PPA’s standards apply to their IMWL claims, the state law claims necessarily fail as well. But if the PPA standards do not apply, the employees’ claims appear subject only to the limitation provided in regulations of the Illinois Department of Labor, which define “hours worked” as “all the time an employee is required to be … on the employer's premises.”

Respecting federalism. Finally, the appeals court found that the Illinois Supreme Court has yet to have an “opportunity to pass on this question of great importance to workers and businesses.” As the final authority on matters of Illinois statutory interpretation, the federal appeals court underscored, the Illinois Supreme Court should decide the question. “Certification is appropriate to respect cooperative federalism and to ensure a definitive answer to this unsettled question of state law.”

The question. Welcoming the Justices to reformulate the question to suit their review, the Seventh Circuit thus asked, “Does the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/4a, incorporate the exclusion from compensation for employee activities that are preliminary or postliminary to their principal activities, as provided under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(2)?”

The case is No. 24-1028.

Judge: Maldonado, N.

Attorneys: Don J. Foty (Law Offices of Don J. Foty) for Lisa Johnson. Kevin Gaffney (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius) for Amazon.com Services LLC.

Companies: Amazon.com Services LLC

Cases: WageHour MinimumWage WorkingTime Procedure Covid19 IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews