Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—WORKING TIME—2d Cir.: Question of compensability of mandatory security screenings certified in Connecticut, (Mar 18, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Amazon required employees at two of its facilities to undergo security screenings before leaving a secured area where merchandise was stored.

In a case involving alleged unpaid straight-time and overtime wages for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings at two Amazon fulfillment centers, the Second Circuit has certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court the question of whether Connecticut’s wage laws and regulations require employees to be paid for such mandatory security screening time. There is no Connecticut state court decision that has provided an authoritative answer to the question, which implicates important policy concerns and could have strong repercussions for employees throughout Connecticut, and it is undisputed that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s answer to these questions will determine the outcome of the appeal, the Second Circuit found (Del Rio v. Amazon.com.dedc, LLC, No. 23-1337 (2d Cir. Mar. 17, 2025)).

Mandatory security screenings. Between April 2018 and the middle of March 2020, Amazon required employees at its BDL2 and BDL3 facilities—in Windsor and North Haven, Connecticut, respectively—to undergo security screenings before leaving the secured area of the fulfillment centers where merchandise was stored. Employees were not required to undergo the security screening procedure upon entry, but only when exiting the secured area.

Metal detectors and express lane. Amazon required that every employee pass through a metal detector upon leaving the secured area, but the specific screening process varied based on the personal belongings an employee elected to carry with them. First, an express lane was available for employees who had nothing on their person. Employees processed through the express lane could just walk straight through the metal detector.

Divesting tables. Second, employees with items in their pockets would pass through the divesting tables. This required the employee to place their pocket items in a basket before passing through the metal detector. Third, employees who brought larger items such as bags, lunch boxes, and purses would have to place those items through an X-Ray machine while they passed through the metal detector. If an employee or their items set off an alarm during screening, the employee proceeded to a secondary screening at which point they were “wanded” by a security guard.

Some autonomy. Each employee maintained some autonomy as to which security process they underwent. Prior to entering the secured area of Amazon’s facilities, the employee could place their personal belongings in lockers provided by Amazon. But if an employee chose to bring in any belongings, they had to undergo the appropriate security process upon leaving the secured area for any reason. This included any time employees attempted to access breakrooms outside the secured area or to leave the facility during their breaks or at the end of their shift.

Punch out first. Amazon arranged the timeclocks within the fulfillment centers so that employees had to clock out before going through security. Employees were therefore not compensated for time they spent undergoing the security screening procedures.

Wage litigation. In response to Amazon’s failure to compensate employees for time spent undergoing mandatory security screening, the three named plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of current and former Amazon employees, filed a class action complaint in Connecticut state court against Amazon.com.dedc, LLC; Amazon.com, Inc.; and Amazon. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies violated Connecticut’s wage laws by not compensating employees for the time spent going through the mandatory security procedure.

In particular, they alleged that they are owed straight-time wages pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71b et seq., and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 31-60-11; and overtime wages pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-68 and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-76b(2)(A) et seq.

The companies timely removed the case to federal district court, and the district court granted summary judgment for the companies.

Appeal and motion to certify question. The plaintiffs timely appealed, and during the pendency of the appeal, they filed a motion to certify a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which the companies opposed. A motions panel of the Second Circuit then referred the appellants’ motion to certify to a panel of the Second Circuit.

An unsettled question of state law. “At the core of this dispute,” the Second Circuit initially observed, “is whether Connecticut’s wage laws and regulations require employees to be compensated for the time spent going through mandatory security screenings at their place of employment.” This is an unsettled question of state law, the appeals court concluded, meriting certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Certification analysis. When determining whether to certify a question, the Second Circuit said, it has “traditionally considered” the following factors: “[1] whether a state court decision has provided an authoritative answer[;] [2] the extent to which the question implicates the weighing of policy concerns of particular importance[;] and [3] if the Connecticut Supreme Court’s answer may be determinative of the appeal.”

Lack of authoritative answer. First, the federal appeals court found that there is no Connecticut state court decision that has provided an authoritative answer to the question. In light of the plain meaning of the definition of “hours worked,” which could suggest that time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings is compensable under Connecticut law, the legislative history of Connecticut’s overtime statutes, and state court decisions that look to federal law in some circumstances but not others, the Second Circuit was “left without either clear authority to decide the issue before it or sufficient information to make a prediction as to how Connecticut’s courts would decide.”

Policy concerns favoring certification. In addition, the Second Circuit found that determining whether time spent in mandatory security screenings is compensable “implicates important policy concerns and could have strong repercussions for employees throughout Connecticut.” Any decision in the case may have far-reaching implications for the pay Connecticut employees are entitled to under their wage laws because, if the federal appeals court decides that time spent in mandatory security screenings is not compensable even though it satisfies the definition of “hours worked,” it would be deciding for the Connecticut legislature that not all “hours worked” are compensable.

Outcome determinative. Finally, it was undisputed that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s answer to the questions will determine the outcome of the appeal. If the Connecticut Supreme Court decides that the Connecticut legislature intended for its wage laws to emulate the FLSA, as amended by the PTPA, then the Second Circuit would affirm the judgment of the district court. In contrast, if the Connecticut Supreme Court decides that Connecticut’s wage laws requires that employees be paid for undergoing mandatory security screenings, the Second Circuit would determine the outcome of the appeal differently.

The Second Circuit’s decision on the merits in the case thus depended entirely on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s response, and this factor, too, favored certification.

Questions certified. Accordingly, the appeals court certified the following questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court:

1. “Whether under Connecticut’s wage laws and regulations, employees must be compensated for the time spent going through mandatory security screenings at their place of employment?” and

2. “Whether a de minimis exception applies, and if so, what amount of time is considered de minimis?”

The case is No. 23-1337.

Judge: Pérez, M.

Attorneys: Richard E. Hayber (Hayber, Mckenna & Dinsemore) for Javier Del Rio. Daniel Benjamin Klein (Seyfarth Shaw) for Amazon.com.Dedc, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon.com.

Companies: Amazon.com.Dedc, LLC; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com

Cases: WageHour WorkingTime Overtime ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews GCNNews