Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Thursday, March 19, 2026
Leading appellate attorneys review the four Illinois Supreme Court opinions handed down Thursday, March 19.
Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, 2026 IL 132016
By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan
Two former employees of Amazon.com Services, LLC, who were hourly employees working in Amazon’s warehouse handling packages, filed this class-action complaint alleging that in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all hourly, nonexempt employees were required to undergo medical screenings prior to clocking in for their shift. The screenings consisted of temperature checks and symptom screening questions. Plaintiffs allege that these uncompensated preshift procedures took 10 to 15 minutes on average, sometimes longer. The complaint was filed in Cook County but was removed to the Northern District of Illinois by Amazon pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
Plaintiffs alleged that Amazon violated federal and Illinois wage laws by failing to pay them and other warehouse employees for the time spent in those screenings. The district court granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit only with respect to the dismissal of their claim based on Illinois law. Upon that court’s certification of a question to the Illinois Supreme Court under Rule 20 “for instruction” (Rule 20(a)), the Supreme Court here answers that question in the negative: “Does the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/4a, incorporate the exclusion from compensation for employee activities that are preliminary or postliminary to their principal activities, as provided under the Federal Portal-to-Portal Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 254(a)(2))?”
In certifying the question, the Seventh Circuit noted that there was no Illinois authority on point, although several federal decisions took up the issue. 142 F.4th 932. The Supreme Court’s opinion sets out in full detail the relevant statutes as well as regulations promulgated by the Illinois Department of Labor. Those provisions will only be summarized here. That Court also noted that the Seventh Circuit laid out a “detailed analysis” of the history of the pertinent statutes.
The Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/4a(1), provides that employees may not be employed for more than 40 hours per week unless time and a half is paid for the excess hours. Although 10 exceptions are set out, none apply to preliminary or postliminary activities. The Wage Law mandated the Director of Labor to make administrative regulations, one of which defines “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.” The federal Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (PPA) (29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(2)) excludes from the operation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)) any requirement for payment for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the employee’s principal activities.
The Supreme Court grounded its decision on the plain language of the Wage Law which did not contain a similar exclusion as that found in the federal scheme. “Here, ... while section 4a of the Wage Law contains the same general overtime provision of the FLSA, it does not include the preliminary and postliminary activity exclusion that is set forth in the FLSA by the PPA.” The Court would not read in an exception.
An amicus brief in support of plaintiffs was filed by the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Department of Labor. A joint amicus brief in support of Amazon was filed by numerous business organizations, both state and national.
The opinion of the Seventh Circuit contains a useful compendium of the law pertaining to when certification under Rule 20 is warranted.
Editor’s note: The remaining case summaries will be added as they are received.