On March 19, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that clears the legal path for workers to sue their employers over unpaid time spent in mandatory security screenings. In Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, the Court held that Illinois employers must compensate employees for all time they are required to be on the employer’s premises—including the 10 to 15 minutes per shift that Amazon warehouse workers spent in COVID-19 and health screenings before clocking in. This ruling fundamentally expands what counts as “hours worked” under Illinois law and directly contradicts employers’ arguments that such preliminary activities fall outside the scope of compensable time.
The decision reverses a common industry practice across Illinois warehouses, retail locations, and security-sensitive facilities where employers have historically required workers to arrive early for screenings without paying them. The Court rejected the application of the federal Portal-to-Portal Act, finding that Illinois’s Minimum Wage Law has a broader definition of compensable work than federal law allows. This means workers who have performed unpaid security screenings, health checks, bag inspections, and similar pre-shift activities may now have grounds to file wage-and-hour claims. The ruling is expected to trigger a wave of new class actions against Illinois employers in warehousing, retail, healthcare, and other industries.
Table of Contents
- What Did the Illinois Supreme Court Actually Decide About Unpaid Security Screenings?
- How Does Illinois Law Define “Hours Worked” Differently Than Federal Law?
- Why Did the Illinois Supreme Court Reject the Federal Portal-to-Portal Act as a Defense?
- Who Can File a Claim Based on This Ruling, and What Should Former or Current Employees Do?
- What Are the Key Limitations of This Ruling That Workers Should Understand?
- How Does This Ruling Affect Other Types of Unpaid Preliminary and Postliminary Work?
- What Does This Ruling Mean for Future Class Actions in Illinois?
What Did the Illinois Supreme Court Actually Decide About Unpaid Security Screenings?
The Johnson v. Amazon case centered on a straightforward but widespread workplace practice: Amazon required its illinois warehouse employees to arrive at work and submit to mandatory COVID-19 and health screenings before they could start their shifts—and before they could clock in and begin getting paid. Former employees Lisa Johnson and Gale Miller anderson documented that these screenings regularly took 10 to 15 minutes or longer each shift. Over the course of a year, this unpaid time added up significantly. Amazon’s position was that these screenings were preliminary activities that happened before the employee’s shift actually began, and therefore were not “hours worked” under Illinois law. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected this framing entirely.
The Court held that under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), employees must be compensated for all time they are required to be on the employer’s premises, regardless of whether they are performing their core job duties. The ruling was clear: once an employer mandates that an employee be present at a specific location for a work-related activity, the clock should be running. This directly contradicts the old interpretation that allowed employers to exclude preliminary and postliminary activities—activities that happen before or after the main work of the job—from compensation. What makes this decision especially significant is that it applies the IMWL more broadly than the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) would apply. Illinois lawmakers and courts have consistently interpreted the state minimum wage law to provide greater protections to workers than federal law requires. In this case, that state-level protection means security screenings, health checks, bag searches, metal detector scans, and similar mandatory pre-shift activities all count as compensable time.
How Does Illinois Law Define “Hours Worked” Differently Than Federal Law?
The Portal-to-Portal Act, passed by Congress in 1947, was designed to limit employer liability for preliminary and postliminary activities under federal wage law. For decades, this federal law allowed employers to exclude activities like changing clothes, walking to a workstation, or passing through security checkpoints from compensable work time. Many Illinois employers had relied on this federal framework, assuming it would shield them from wage claims related to security screenings and similar pre-shift activities. However, the Illinois Supreme Court made clear that state law takes precedence on this question. The Court found that the Portal-to-Portal Act’s limitations do not apply to claims brought under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. This is crucial because it means Illinois employers cannot use the federal law’s exemptions as a defense against wage claims brought under state law.
The state law is simply more protective. The IMWL’s definition of compensable time is broader: if an employee is required to be on the employer’s premises and the activity is work-related, it counts as hours worked. However, this does not mean every second an employee spends at a facility is automatically compensable. Courts still look at whether the activity is truly mandatory and work-related. For example, if an employee voluntarily stays after their shift ends to socialize with coworkers, that would not be compensable. But if an employer requires or strongly pressures an employee to be present for a security screening, health check, or safety briefing before clocking in, that time must be paid. The distinction is between truly optional activities and those that are effectively mandated by the employer.
Why Did the Illinois Supreme Court Reject the Federal Portal-to-Portal Act as a Defense?
The Portal-to-Portal Act has been a standard employer defense in wage-and-hour litigation for nearly 80 years. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld its framework: employers can exclude time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities as long as those activities occur before or after the employee’s principal work activities. Under this federal standard, Amazon and other employers argued that screenings happening before employees clocked in were preliminary activities and therefore not compensable. But Illinois courts have a long history of interpreting the state minimum wage law more expansively than federal law permits. The Court recognized that the Portal-to-Portal Act is a federal statute that operates within the federal Fair Labor Standards Act framework. It does not constrain how states interpret their own wage laws.
Since the IMWL uses broader language regarding what constitutes “hours worked,” state law simply provides more protection. The Court essentially held that employers cannot use a federal law to shrink the rights granted by Illinois state law. This principle matters far beyond Amazon and security screenings. It means the Portal-to-Portal Act cannot be invoked to shield Illinois employers from liability for other types of pre-shift or post-shift activities either. Mandatory donning and doffing of protective equipment, security briefings, equipment inspections, or similar activities all fall into this category. Any activity that an Illinois employer requires workers to perform at the workplace before or after their core shift time is potentially compensable. This expansion of liability has prompted predictions that a wave of wage-and-hour litigation will follow, targeting employers across warehousing, retail, healthcare, and security industries in Illinois.
Who Can File a Claim Based on This Ruling, and What Should Former or Current Employees Do?
The Johnson ruling applies to any worker in Illinois who has been required to undergo mandatory security screenings, health checks, safety briefings, or similar pre-shift or post-shift activities without compensation. This includes current employees and former employees. Current employees who continue to experience unpaid screenings have an immediate opportunity to document the time and consider filing a wage claim. Former employees who experienced these practices during their employment retain the right to pursue claims for unpaid time—though there are statute of limitations considerations. If you are a current or former employee at an Amazon warehouse or any other Illinois employer that required unpaid security screenings or health checks, the first step is to gather documentation. Write down the dates you worked, the approximate duration of the screenings each shift, and any evidence that supports your account (text messages, emails, pay stubs, social media posts referencing the practice, or testimony from coworkers).
Then consult with an employment law attorney who handles wage-and-hour cases. Many attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they are paid only if you win your case or reach a settlement, and they often handle these cases as class actions that include multiple employees. One important limitation: the statute of limitations for wage-and-hour claims in Illinois is typically three years for unpaid wages, though in some cases it may be two years. This means you can pursue claims for unpaid time going back roughly three years from now (to March 2023). If you worked at a facility with unpaid screenings before that date, those claims may be time-barred. Additionally, if you worked for a very small employer (fewer than five employees), some Illinois wage protections may not apply—though the courts have interpreted these exceptions narrowly. Your attorney can advise on whether your situation qualifies for legal action.
What Are the Key Limitations of This Ruling That Workers Should Understand?
While the Johnson decision is a major victory for workers, it is not a blank check to sue over every moment spent at a workplace. The ruling hinges on the requirement that the activity be mandatory and work-related. If an employer offers a voluntary health screening but does not require employees to participate, or if participation is optional, that activity may not be compensable. Similarly, activities that are truly personal or unrelated to work—such as an employee’s personal phone call or self-directed break—would not be compensable even if they occur on the employer’s premises. Another limitation involves the calculation of damages. Proving how much time was spent in screenings each shift requires documentation or testimony. If you cannot establish a consistent pattern and duration, calculating your total unpaid wages becomes difficult.
Some employees may have kept records, but many will need to rely on memory or coworker testimony to estimate the time. Courts and juries tend to be more receptive to claims backed by hard evidence. Additionally, the ruling does not automatically entitle workers to treble damages, attorney’s fees, or penalties—those remedies depend on proving the employer’s conduct was willful or in bad faith, which requires a stronger showing. Also, this ruling applies only to Illinois. Employees who worked in Amazon warehouses or other facilities in neighboring states like Indiana or Missouri cannot rely on this decision in their own state wage claims. Some states have adopted similar protections, but many have not. If you worked in multiple states, you may need to consult separate legal standards for each jurisdiction. Also, the ruling does not change the fact that class action litigation takes time; even a straightforward case can take years to resolve through trial or settlement negotiations.
How Does This Ruling Affect Other Types of Unpaid Preliminary and Postliminary Work?
The Johnson decision does not stop at security screenings. It establishes a principle that applies to a much broader category of pre-shift and post-shift activities. Any employer in Illinois that requires workers to spend time donning or doffing protective equipment before clocking in—such as safety vests, gloves, hard hats, or hazmat suits—may now owe compensation for that time. Healthcare workers required to don personal protective equipment before their shift officially begins, construction workers gearing up before work starts, or food service workers washing hands and preparing stations before clocking in could all potentially have claims.
Mandatory safety briefings and toolbox talks present another example. If an employer requires workers to gather for a 15-minute safety briefing before the shift begins, that time should now be compensated under Illinois law. The same applies to mandatory equipment inspections, workplace walkthroughs, or training sessions that occur before the employee’s scheduled shift. Even activities like badge scans, fingerprint verification, or other identity-confirmation processes that take several minutes could potentially be compensable if required and work-related. The breadth of the ruling means employers across many industries are reassessing their pre-shift and post-shift procedures and calculating potential liability.
What Does This Ruling Mean for Future Class Actions in Illinois?
Legal experts and employment law firms have flagged the Johnson ruling as likely to spark a significant increase in wage-and-hour class action litigation throughout Illinois. The decision creates a clear legal pathway for workers to sue, removes a major federal law defense that employers had relied on, and applies to a widespread industry practice. Employers in warehousing, retail, logistics, manufacturing, and healthcare—industries where mandatory pre-shift activities are common—are now at heightened risk of litigation.
Some major employers have already begun reviewing their policies and, in some cases, implementing changes to comply with the ruling. However, many employers have not yet adjusted their practices, creating a window of opportunity for workers to pursue claims. The ruling also has implications beyond individual lawsuits. It is likely to influence how the Illinois legislature and regulators approach wage-and-hour protections going forward, and it may prompt similar cases in other states to challenge the application of the federal Portal-to-Portal Act to state wage laws.
You Might Also Like
- Illinois Supreme Court Opens Door to Overtime Class Actions Over Security Checkpoints
- Virginia School District Sues Social Media Platforms Over Student Harm
- State Representative Responds to Court Ruling Against Meta and YouTube
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: