2nd Circuit Sends Security Wages Case to Connecticut High Court

Takeaway: Employers are responsible for complying with applicable state and local law, which may differ from federal law. Experienced wage and hour counsel can assist in identifying the differences between federal, state, and local law and prepare a compliance strategy where the law is unsettled, such as in Connecticut.  

The question of whether Connecticut’s wage laws require employees to be compensated for time spent going through mandatory security should be answered by the Connecticut Supreme Court, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. 

Former employees of Amazon filed a lawsuit in Connecticut Superior Court, alleging that the owner and operator of warehouse facilities throughout Connecticut violated state wage law by failing to compensate employees for time they were required to undergo security screenings before leaving the secured area of the Amazon fulfillment centers where merchandise was stored. Amazon removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Connecticut wage law defines “hours worked” to include “all time during which an employee is required by the employer to be on the employer’s premises or to be on duty, or to be at the prescribed workplace.”

The district court granted summary judgment to Amazon on the grounds that the Connecticut Assembly implicitly intended to incorporate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) into its overtime scheme and that security screening time is not compensable under the FLSA, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk.

On appeal, the 2nd Circuit 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 appeals court explained that there is no Connecticut state court decision that has provided an authoritative answer to these questions and that the authority currently available is insufficient to determine whether Connecticut will reach the same conclusion about its state laws as the U.S. Supreme Court did about the FLSA. The 2nd Circuit noted that several other states, such as Pennsylvania and Maryland, have rejected the federal approach and determined that their state wage laws require compensation for time spent in mandatory security screenings.

Del Rio v. Amazon.com DEDC LLC, 2nd Cir., No. 23-1337 (March 17, 2025).

Natalie F. Bare is an attorney in the Philadelphia office of Duane Morris LLP.