On March 31, 2026, a district court judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a class action complaint which alleged that Amazon warehouse workers were denied minimum and overtime wages under the New York Labor Law (NYLL). In doing so, the court held that the NYLL, consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), does not require employers to compensate employees for “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities.
Under the FLSA as enacted in 1938, “hours worked” included all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer’s premises or at any other prescribed place of work, as well as any additional time the employee is allowed (i.e., “suffered or permitted”) to work. The Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (PPA) later amended the FLSA to clarify the distinction between compensable and non-compensable time. In relevant part, Section 254 of the PPA provides that employers are not required to pay for time employees spend on activities that are “preliminary” or “postliminary” to their principal work duties—i.e., activities that occur before or after tasks that are an “integral and indispensable” part of the employee’s principal work. Courts have held that non-compensable preliminary or postliminary time includes (among other activities) walking between the entrance to the workplace and an employee’s actual workstation, clocking in or out (and waiting in line to do so), and changing clothes if not required by law or for the particular job.
In recent years, courts across the country have debated whether state wage and hour laws incorporate the PPA’s amendments to the FLSA regarding the compensability of preliminary and postliminary activities. As we recently discussed here and here, the Supreme Courts in Nevada and Illinois held that their respective wage and hour laws then in effect do not incorporate the PPA’s amendments. But these decisions have not been unanimous.
In Bettis v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 24-cv-07563-LDH-JAM, the plaintiffs alleged that Amazon.com Services LLC (the “Company”) required workers to undergo security screenings before and after their scheduled shifts but did not pay them for the time. Plaintiffs further alleged that the pre- and post-shift time for which they received no compensation, including pre-shift mandatory COVID-19 screening, totaled up to 30 minutes per day. Consistent with its defense in other matters, the Company moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the NYLL tracks the FLSA and, thus, that the time employees spent undergoing security and COVID-19 screenings was non-compensable as a preliminary or postliminary activity. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint.
The Bettis court explained that courts within the Second Circuit regularly analyze NYLL overtime and minimum wage claims under the same standards as the FLSA, and have held that to sufficiently plead an unpaid overtime or minimum wage claim under the NYLL, a plaintiff must allege that they first engaged in compensable work under the FLSA, and therefore, by extension, under the NYLL. Thus, according to the court, the NYLL necessarily incorporated the PPA’s amendments to the FLSA.
Additionally, the court reasoned that its conclusion was supported by the New York Department of Labor’s interpretation of compensable time under the NYLL, which it found was “neither irrational, unreasonable, nor contrary to the plain meaning of [the NYLL regulations].”
Having made that threshold finding, the court went on to explain that none of the unpaid time alleged was “integral and indispensable” to the principal activities the workers were hired to perform (i.e., “packaging and sorting customer orders”). Therefore, the time was not compensable, and the Company did not violate the NYLL in failing to pay employees for it.
As noted, this ruling contrasts with a number of recent decisions holding that certain state wage laws do not incorporate the PPA exclusions, thereby requiring compensation for “preliminary” and “postliminary” activities. Whether the plaintiffs in Bettis appeal the decision remains to be seen. But for now, it is a win for employers in New York.
We will continue to track developments in this ever-evolving area of law.
