942 F.3d 297
6th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Heimbach and Salasky worked at Amazon's Pennsylvania fulfillment center and were required to undergo unpaid, end-of-shift security screenings after clocking out.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) seeking compensation for time spent waiting for and undergoing those screenings.
- Case was removed to federal court, transferred to an MDL in the Western District of Kentucky, and the district court granted summary judgment for defendants relying on the Supreme Court's FLSA decision in Integrity Staffing (Busk I).
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth Circuit and moved to certify questions of Pennsylvania law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- The Sixth Circuit found the issues unsettled under Pennsylvania law and granted certification of two questions: (1) whether security-screening time is compensable under the PMWA, i.e., whether the Portal-to-Portal Act's framework applies to the PMWA; and (2) whether the federal de minimis doctrine applies to PMWA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time waiting for and undergoing mandatory post‑shift security screening on employer premises is "hours worked" under the PMWA (i.e., whether the Portal‑to‑Portal Act/Busk I framework applies). | PMWA provides broader employee protections than the FLSA and does not incorporate the Portal‑to‑Portal Act; security screening time is compensable. | Portal‑to‑Portal Act and Busk I govern similar state claims; time spent in security screening is noncompensable postliminary activity. | Sixth Circuit declined to decide and certified the question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as an unsettled issue of state law. |
| Whether the de minimis doctrine (Anderson/Sandifer) applies to bar PMWA claims for very small amounts of uncompensated work. | De minimis should not preclude PMWA claims; PMWA and its regulations do not expressly adopt the federal de minimis rule. | The federal de minimis doctrine can bar trivial time‑based claims; it should apply to PMWA claims here. | Sixth Circuit certified the question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, finding the issue unsettled and appropriate for state resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014) (post‑shift security screenings held noncompensable under FLSA as postliminary activity).
- Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (2014) (discusses de minimis principle under FLSA and Portal Act context).
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (foundational discussion of de minimis and compensable work time).
- Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974) (federal courts may certify unsettled state‑law questions to state supreme courts).
- Busk v. Integrity Staffing Sols., 905 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2018) (related Sixth Circuit MDL opinion addressing similar wage‑hour issues).
- Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc., 852 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2017) (Sixth Circuit discussion of state wage statutes and certification timing).
- Caiarelli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 46 A.3d 643 (Pa. 2012) (per curiam dismissal with two‑justice dissent asserting Pennsylvania has not adopted the Portal‑to‑Portal Act).
- Smith v. Allegheny Technologies, Inc., [citation="754 F. App'x 136"] (3d Cir. 2018) (Third Circuit noted Pennsylvania has not enacted Portal‑to‑Portal Act and applied broader state law view).