Conservative justices skeptical of worker claims in Amazon case

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on whether Amazon warehouse workers should be compensated for the time they spend waiting for screenings after their shifts.

The conservative justices on the court expressed clear skepticism that the Nevada workers’ should be paid extra wages for the time they spend waiting to be checked for stolen goods. The process can sometimes take up to 25 minutes. 

{mosads}Justices peppered lawyers with a half dozen alternate tasks some employees go through to see whether they should also be compensated — including a law clerk coming in early to cut a judge’s grapefruit, a casino employee cashing out the register at the end of a shift, or an employee being required to undergo drug testing. 

“I don’t see how you can call it a principle activity,” Justice Antonin Scalia said at one point, honing in on a key requirement of the labor law governing the case. 

He added at another point: “It is not part of the job.”

Chief Justice John Roberts similarly said the screening can be a “requirement of the job,” without being a principle activity. 

“You would not pay anyone to just go through security,” Justice Samuel Alito said. 

The case hinges on the Fair Labor Standards Act, which generally does not require companies to pay for after-work activities unless they are “integral and indispensable” to a worker’s principle activities. 

Mark Thierman, the lawyer representing the workers, argued the screening process is actually a function of their work, and should not be classified as a “post-liminary” activity. 

The case has broad implications for Amazon and many other companies. If the court sides with workers, companies could be liable in more than a dozen class-action suits seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in back pay.

Integrity Staffing Solutions, the contract firm hired by Amazon to supply workers at the Nevada warehouses, is named the chief petitioner on the case before the court. But Amazon, Apple, CVS and other companies have been named in other lawsuits around the country.

Justice Elena Kagan said the key aspect of what makes “Amazon, Amazon” is its elaborate system of inventory, in which the company must “know where every toothbrush in the warehouse is.”

The screening by the company seems to be a “necessary part” of the warehouse job, she said. 

Business groups including the Chamber of Commerce are backing Amazon in the dispute, as is the Obama administration, which requested a small amount of time to argue before the court on Wednesday. 

As Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out at one point: If the court followed the Labor Department’s recommendation in the case, “They are saying you lose,” he said, directing his remarks at the lawyer representing the workers.