Tina Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc.
852 F.3d 601
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Tina and Aaron Vance worked at an Amazon fulfillment center in Kentucky and regularly worked 40+ hours per week; Amazon required mandatory, post-shift theft-prevention security screenings (metal detectors, bag checks) lasting about 10–30 minutes that employees were not paid for.
- The Vances sued Amazon and staffing agency Kelly Services under the FLSA and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act (KWHA); after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Integrity Staffing (holding similar security screenings noncompensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act), the Vances withdrew their FLSA claims but maintained their KWHA claims.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants, reasoning Kentucky courts look to federal law in construing the KWHA and that Integrity Staffing therefore controls; the Vances appealed.
- The Vances asked the Sixth Circuit to certify the state-law question to the Kentucky Supreme Court; the Sixth Circuit denied certification as untimely and because existing state authorities and regulations provided guidance.
- The Sixth Circuit considered whether the KWHA incorporates the Portal-to-Portal Act limits (i.e., excludes preliminary/postliminary activities from compensable time) and concluded Kentucky would apply the same principal-activity framework, so post-shift security screenings are noncompensable under the KWHA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the KWHA incorporates the Portal-to-Portal Act’s preliminary/postliminary exclusions | KWHA lacks Portal-to-Portal language; Kentucky did not adopt those exclusions so Integrity Staffing should not apply | KWHA is substantially similar to the FLSA and Kentucky courts and regulations rely on federal precedent and Portal-to-Portal concepts | KWHA incorporates the Portal-to-Portal limitations; Integrity Staffing applies |
| Whether post-shift security screenings are compensable "principal activities" | Screenings are required by employer and benefit employer; thus compensable under KWHA | Screenings are not the work employees were hired to perform and are not integral and indispensable to principal activities | Screenings are postliminary and noncompensable under KWHA |
| Whether to certify the state-law question to the Kentucky Supreme Court | Certification appropriate because state law is unsettled | Certification unnecessary; district court and existing state law/regulations suffice | Court denied certification as untimely and unnecessary |
| Whether judgment on the pleadings was proper | Plaintiffs argued state-law claim survived Integrity Staffing | Defendants argued they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the Portal-to-Portal framework adopted into Kentucky law | Judgment on the pleadings for defendants was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (2014) (Supreme Court holding post-shift security screenings are noncompensable postliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005) (defining "integral and indispensable" and discussing Portal-to-Portal Act scope)
- Tenn. Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944) (early broad definition of "work" under the FLSA)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (workweek and compensable preparatory activities analysis)
- Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (discussion of "principal activity" and statutory interpretation under the FLSA)
- City of Louisville, Div. of Fire v. Fire Serv. Managers Ass'n, 212 S.W.3d 89 (Ky. 2006) (Kentucky treats KWHA as analogous to the FLSA and looks to federal precedent where statutes are substantially similar)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974) (burden of proof on employer to establish FLSA exemptions)