In a motion to dismiss a proposed class action filed in the Eastern District of California, Amazon.com Services LLC claims it has no obligation to pay fulfilment centre workers for time spent undergoing mandatory Covid-19 screenings, which benefits the public in general.
The required screenings, which are conducted in accordance with government regulations and guidance for all visitors, not just employees, aren’t compensable “work” under the Fair Labor Standards Act because they aren’t primarily for Amazon’s benefit, according to the Thursday motion. According to Amazon, everyone benefits from the screenings, and the benefit to Amazon is purely coincidental.
Even if they are considered work-related, Amazon claims that the pre-shift health screenings are only “preliminary” to their main activities, similar to the security screenings that the US Supreme Court ruled were not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Integrity Staffing Sols. Inc. v. Busk.
According to an informal FAQ published by the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, “a temperature check before they begin work must be paid because it is necessary for their jobs,” which Amazon acknowledges.
However, according to Amazon, while the screenings may be required for patient-facing health-related jobs, they aren’t required for warehouse associates, and the advice isn’t entitled to much deference in any case.
According to Amazon, the plaintiffs also failed to allege that the “screenings themselves take any appreciable amount of time.” The company claims that while waiting time is clearly not compensable, the plaintiffs’ estimates of 10 to 15 minutes combined screening and wait time.
Similar arguments are used by Amazon to refute the plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid wages and overtime under state law.
In Frlekin v. Apple Inc., a California court determined that time spent in security screenings was compensable under state law.
According to Amazon, the security screenings were first implemented to prevent theft and were thus primarily intended for the benefit of the employer. Second, the employees were not allowed to leave work until the screenings were completed, and they were subjected to a greater level of intrusion and control, according to the report.
