Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—OVERTIME—7th Cir.: Amazon workers revive Illinois overtime claims based on pre-shift COVID screenings, (Jun 10, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that there is no mention or reference to the Portal-to-Portal Act or to preliminary or postliminary activities in the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Amazon.com Services LLC was not entitled to dismissal of Illinois overtime claims brought by two hourly warehouse employees who alleged that they were not paid for time spent undergoing mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings, the Seventh Circuit found. Following clarification from the Illinois Supreme Court that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law does not incorporate the Portal-to-Portal Act’s preliminary activities exclusion, the federal appeals court reversed and remanded to the district court. The Seventh Circuit also rejected Amazon’s newly-raised argument that the COVID-19 screenings were not compensable work under the IMWL because they were not pursued primarily for Amazon’s benefit (Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 24-1028 (7th Cir. June 9, 2026)).

Unpaid mandatory screenings. At the outset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, according to the court, Amazon instituted a policy barring warehouse employees from clocking into their shifts until they underwent a medical examination to screen for symptoms of COVID-19. These screenings took approximately 10 to 15 minutes, and because warehouse employees were not paid until they clocked in, that time was uncompensated. The screenings amounted to potentially one hour per week of uncompensated overtime on Amazon’s property, under Amazon’s control, “a non-trivial imposition for those compensated on an hourly basis,” according to the court.

Putative class action. In 2023, the two plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of Amazon warehouse employees who were not paid for time spent undergoing the mandatory COVID-19 screenings. They relied on several theories in their complaint, only one of which is relevant, according to the court: that Amazon failed to pay them for overtime in violation of Section 4a(1) of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), which requires employers to pay their hourly employees time-and-a-half for all “employment in excess of” 40 hours in a work-week.

Portal-to-Portal Act argument. Amazon moved to dismiss, arguing, as relevant, that Section 4a(1) incorporates the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA), which relieves employers from paying wages for “activities which are preliminary to” the principal activity which the employee is employed to perform, namely, activities occurring “prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences.” See 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(2).

Decision below. Construing the IMWL and the PPA together, the district court agreed with Amazon and dismissed the plaintiffs’ IMWL claim, finding that the pre-shift COVID-19 screenings were non-compensable preliminary activities.

Appeal. The plaintiffs appealed, asking the Seventh Circuit to certify to the Illinois Supreme Court whether Section 4a(1) incorporates the preliminary activities exclusion set forth in the PPA.

Certified question answered. The federal appeals court obliged, and the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the IMWL did not incorporate the preliminary activities exclusions set forth in the PPA, and in fact, that “hours worked” seems to “necessarily include[] pre-liminary... activities.”

Remand appropriate. Now with the benefit of the state high court’s guidance, the Seventh Circuit found that remand was appropriate. The parties agreed that it was, though Amazon asked the federal appeals court to vacate the dismissal and allow the district court to address in the first instance whether the IMWL claim fails on a different basis, specifically that the COVID-19 screenings were not compensable work under the IMWL because they were not pursued primarily for Amazon’s benefit. The Seventh Circuit took up this argument in the first instance and rejected it.

Amazon’s “benefit of the employer” argument. The “benefit of the employer” test advocated by Amazon, noted the federal appeals court, derives from Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Loc. No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944). There, the U.S. Supreme Court defined “work” under the FLSA as “physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business.” Here, Amazon argued that the COVID-19 screenings were not “necessarily and primarily” for Amazon’s benefit, and as a result, were not compensable work under the IMWL. The Seventh Circuit was unpersuaded.

First, the appeals court found, neither the plain, unambiguous text of Section 4a(1), nor that of its implementing regulations, mentions the “benefit of the employer” or suggests a similar limit on compensable work. Second, the court noted, the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) has included the “benefit of the employer” test in two specific contexts—concerning meal and travel time—within its definition of “hours worked,” suggesting that outside of those contexts, the test does not apply. Third, as the Illinois Supreme Court pointed out in its answer to the certified question, there are sections of the IDOL regulations that expressly “reference[] specific provisions of the FLSA and regulations promulgated by USDOL thereunder in defining some terms.” In its definition of “hours worked,” however, IDOL makes no such reference to the FLSA and only references federal DOL regulations in a single, specific scenario, irrelevant to the appeal. And fourth, IDOL had a clear opportunity to adopt the “benefit of the employer” test when it set forth its definition of “hours worked,” but the state agency declined to do so.

Thus, the Seventh Circuit concluded, the plain text of Section 4a(1) of the IMWL, as well as the relevant IDOL regulations, demonstrate that Section 4a(1) does not include the “benefit of the employer” test, and the federal appeals court declined to read that test into the statute.

The Seventh Circuit accordingly reversed and remanded.

The case is No. 24-1028.

Judge: Maldonado, N.

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

Companies: Amazon.com Services LLC

Cases: WageHour ClassActions Overtime StateLawClaims Procedure IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews