Del Rio v. Amazon.com.dedc, LLC

132 F.4th 172 (2d Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · March 17, 2025 · No. 23-1337

Summary

This Second Circuit opinion addresses whether Connecticut wage laws require employers to compensate employees for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings after clocking out. Finding the question of state law unresolved and lacking authoritative guidance, the court sua sponte certifies two questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The certified questions ask whether such screening time is compensable and, if so, whether a de minimis exception applies. The court reserves decision pending the state supreme court's response.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Myrna Pérez; Debra Ann Livingston, Chief Judge; Myrna Pérez, Circuit Judge; Katherine B. Forrest Nathan, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
March 17, 2025
Docket number
23-1337
Procedural posture
Employees appealed from the District of Connecticut's grant of summary judgment to Amazon and dismissal of their amended class action complaint seeking straight-time and overtime wages for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings. During the appeal, the employees moved to certify a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. The court views the facts, resolves ambiguities, and draws inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, affirming only if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Second Circuit opinion concerning certification of unsettled Connecticut wage-law questions.
Parties
Javier Del Rio, Colin Meunier, Aaron Delaroche, Similarly situated employees v. Amazon.com.dedc, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC
Disposition
other

Topics

wage and hourappellate procedurestatutory interpretationstandard of review

Practice areas

employment lawwage and hourappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Connecticut wage laws and regulations require employees to be compensated for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings at their place of employment.
  2. If such screening time is compensable, whether a de minimis exception applies and what amount of time qualifies as de minimis.
  3. Whether certification of those unsettled Connecticut-law questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court is warranted.

Holdings

  1. Certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court is warranted because no authoritative Connecticut decision resolves whether mandatory security-screening time is compensable, the question implicates important state policy concerns, and the answer may determine the outcome of the appeal.
  2. The Second Circuit declined to decide the unsettled state-law issue and instead certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court whether Connecticut law requires compensation for mandatory security-screening time.
  3. The court certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court whether a de minimis exception applies and, if so, what amount of time qualifies as de minimis.

Key quotations

We determine nostra sponte that certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court is warranted on the question of whether Connecticut’s wage laws and regulations require employees to be compensated for the time spent going through mandatory security screenings at their place of employment. (at 2)
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? (at 20)
Whether a de minimis exception applies, and if so, what amount of time is considered de minimis? (at 20)

Factual background

Amazon required employees at two Connecticut fulfillment centers to undergo mandatory security screenings when leaving the secured warehouse area between April 2018 and March 15, 2020. Depending on their belongings, employees used an express lane, divesting tables, an X-ray machine, or secondary screening by a security guard. Amazon arranged its timeclocks so that employees clocked out before undergoing screening, and therefore did not compensate them for that time.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Connecticut Superior Court alleging violations of Connecticut wage laws. Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The district court granted defendants summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The Second Circuit retained jurisdiction, certified two questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court sua sponte, and dismissed the pending certification motion as moot.

Remand instructions

The Clerk was ordered to transmit the opinion, briefs, and appendices to the Clerk of the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Second Circuit retained jurisdiction to resolve the appeal after the Connecticut Supreme Court disposes of the certified questions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…