Changeflow GovPing Healthcare Johnson v. Amazon.com Services - Wage Compensat...
Priority review Enforcement Added Final

Johnson v. Amazon.com Services - Wage Compensation for Pre-Shift Activities

Favicon for www.jdsupra.com JD Supra Healthcare
Filed March 19th, 2026
Detected April 1st, 2026
Email

Summary

The Illinois Supreme Court in Lisa Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC ruled that under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), employers must compensate nonexempt employees for preliminary and postliminary activities such as pre-shift COVID-19 screenings. This decision diverges from federal law under the Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA), which excludes such activities from compensable time. The ruling applies to all employers with nonexempt employees in Illinois and may expose them to class action liability for unpaid screening time.

What changed

The Illinois Supreme Court held that the IMWL does not incorporate the PPA's exclusion of preliminary and postliminary activities from compensable time. In Lisa Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, the Court examined Section 4a of the IMWL (820 ILCS 105/4a), which provides ten specific exceptions to overtime, none of which reference the PPA or preliminary/postliminary activities. The Court also reviewed 56 Ill. Admin. Code 210.110, which defines 'hours worked' as all time an employee is required to be on the employer's premises, with no reference to PPA exclusions.

Illinois employers with nonexempt employees should review their compensation practices for time spent on pre-shift and post-shift activities, including COVID-19 screenings, bag checks, and equipment preparation. Such time must now be included in calculating overtime under Illinois law. Employers face potential class action exposure for any historical non-compliance with this standard, which represents a significant departure from decades of federal precedent under the FLSA.

What to do next

  1. Review compensation practices for time spent on pre-shift and post-shift activities for Illinois nonexempt employees
  2. Include preliminary and postliminary activities (COVID-19 screenings, security checks, equipment preparation) in hours worked calculations for overtime purposes
  3. Consult legal counsel regarding potential class action exposure for historical non-compliance with IMWL compensation requirements

Penalties

Class action liability for unpaid preliminary and postliminary activity time; overtime back pay obligations for affected nonexempt employees

Source document (simplified)

April 1, 2026

Illinois Supreme Court Holds That Preliminary and Postliminary Activities Must Be Paid

James Looby, Gymmel Trembly Vedder + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

On March 19, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Lisa Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, clarifying that nonexempt employees must be compensated for time spent completing pre-shift COVID-19 screenings, and other “preliminary” and “postliminary” activities under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). This marks a significant departure from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which as amended by Section 254 of the Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA), excludes from an employee’s compensable time preliminary and postliminary activities—i.e., activities that occur before or after tasks that are an “integral and indispensable” part of the employee’s principal work.

Lisa Johnson, a former Amazon.com Services LLC (Company) employee, filed a putative class action in Illinois state court alleging that the Company violated the FLSA and the IMWL by failing to pay its nonexempt employees overtime arising out of mandatory, pre-shift COVID-19 screenings. Johnson alleged that the screening time was compensable because employees were required to be on Company premises, the screenings were necessary for their work, and the primary purpose of the screenings was to keep the Company’s fulfillment centers operational.

After removing the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the COVID-19 screening time was not compensable under the PPA. The district court granted the motion, dismissing Johnson’s FLSA claim because the COVID-19 screening time was not compensable. The court also dismissed the IMWL claim on the ground that the IMWL incorporated the PPA’s exclusion of preliminary and postliminary activities from compensable time.

Johnson appealed the dismissal of her IMWL claim and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to certify to the Illinois Supreme Court the question of whether the IMWL incorporates the PPA’s exclusion of preliminary and postliminary activities from employees’ compensable time. The Seventh Circuit noted that both sides had plausible arguments on the issue and certified the proposed question.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson, and held that the IMWL does not include an exception for preliminary and postliminary activities as set forth in the PPA. Such time must be included in determining overtime compensation owed to nonexempt employees.

The Court examined Section 4a of the IMWL, 820 ILCS 105/4a, which provides for a general right to overtime except for ten specific exceptions. The Court noted that while four of the exceptions reference the FLSA, none mentions the PPA or preliminary or postliminary activities, thus demonstrating an intentional decision by the Illinois legislature not to incorporate the PPA’s exclusions.

The Court also reviewed the regulations underlying the IMWL, 56 Ill. Admin. Code 210.110, which define “hours worked” as “all the time an employee is required to be on duty, or on the employer’s premises or at other prescribed places of work, and any additional time the employee is required or permitted to work for the employer.” Notably, Section 210.110 makes no reference to the PPA or the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) regulations excluding preliminary or postliminary activities from compensation. Rather, “hours worked,” as defined in the IMWL, includes all time the employee is required to be on the employer’s premises, which is inconsistent with the application of the PPA exclusion.

Additionally, the Court examined another section of the regulations, 56 Ill. Admin. Code 210.120, which allows the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) to refer to USDOL regulations and interpretations of the FLSA for guidance in interpreting the IMWL. Although this section has been read to support the general proposition that courts should look to federal law and regulations to interpret the scope and meaning of the IMWL, the Court noted that Section 210.120 does not require the IDOL to adopt provisions of the FLSA or provide that USDOL regulations can override the IDOL’s own definition of “hours worked.”

Following the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling, employers in Illinois should review their timekeeping and pay practices to ensure that employees are being properly paid for all required time. The Johnson decision makes clear that time employers may have previously disregarded is now compensable under Illinois (and other states’) law, even if excluded as preliminary or postliminary under federal law.

We will continue to track developments in this developing area of law.

Download PDF

[View source.]

Send Print Report

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.

©
Vedder

Written by:

Vedder Contact + Follow James Looby + Follow Gymmel Trembly + Follow more less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA

  • ✔ Increased readership
  • ✔ Actionable analytics
  • ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra

Start Publishing »

Published In:

Coronavirus/COVID-19 + Follow Employer Responsibilities + Follow Employment Litigation + Follow Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) + Follow Illinois + Follow Minimum Wage + Follow Non-Exempt Employees + Follow State Labor Laws + Follow Statutory Interpretation + Follow Timekeeping + Follow Unpaid Overtime + Follow Unpaid Wages + Follow Wage and Hour + Follow Health + Follow Labor & Employment + Follow more less

Vedder on:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide

Named provisions

Section 4a of the IMWL (820 ILCS 105/4a) 56 Ill. Admin. Code 210.110 - Hours Worked Definition Section 254 of the Portal-to-Portal Act

Source

Analysis generated by AI. Source diff and links are from the original.

Classification

Agency
IL Supreme Court
Filed
March 19th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive

Who this affects

Applies to
Employers
Industry sector
4411 Retail Trade 4541 E-Commerce 9211 Government & Public Administration
Activity scope
Wage & Hour Compensation Overtime Calculation COVID-19 Safety Screenings
Geographic scope
Illinois US-IL

Taxonomy

Primary area
Employment & Labor
Operational domain
Compliance
Topics
Wage & Hour COVID-19 Class Action

Get Healthcare alerts

Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when JD Supra Healthcare publishes new changes.

Optional. Personalizes your daily digest.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.