Johnson v. Amazon: Seventh Circuit Certifies Whether Illinois Minimum Wage Law Excludes Preliminary and Postliminary Activities

Introduction

In Lisa Johnson & Gale Miller Anderson v. Amazon.com Services LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confronted a recurring wage-and-hour controversy arising from mandatory COVID-19 health screenings at Amazon’s Illinois warehouses. The plaintiffs sought overtime pay for 10-15 minutes spent in pre-shift temperature and symptom checks, claiming such time was compensable under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) notwithstanding the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA).

After the district court dismissed all claims, holding that the screenings were non-compensable “preliminary activities” under the PPA and that the IMWL incorporated the same exclusion, the employees appealed only their state-law claims. Finding a dearth of Illinois authority and “genuine uncertainty” over state legislative intent, the Seventh Circuit certified the dispositive question to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: The Seventh Circuit did not decide whether the PPA exclusions apply to the IMWL. Instead, it certified that question to the Illinois Supreme Court and stayed federal proceedings.
• Certified Question: “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 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(2)?”
• Rationale for Certification: Absence of controlling Illinois precedent; competing plausible statutory interpretations; high public importance; likelihood of recurrence; issue is outcome-determinative.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) & Tennessee Coal, 321 U.S. 590 (1944)
  Supreme Court decisions that initially defined “work” expansively, prompting Congress to enact the PPA. They inform Illinois’ regulatory definition of “hours worked.”
• Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 254
  Creates statutory exclusions for (1) travel to the place of principal activity and (2) activities “preliminary or post-liminary” to principal activities. Central to Amazon’s defense.
• Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014)
  Clarifies “integral and indispensable” test under PPA. District court used Busk to deem COVID screenings non-integral to warehouse duties.
• Chagoya v. City of Chicago, 992 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2021)
  Seventh Circuit assumed—without analysis—PPA exclusions applied to IMWL claims, but expressly noted the assumption was based on party agreement. Johnson court distinguished this as non-precedential.
• Section 210.110 & 210.120, Illinois Administrative Code
  Define “hours worked” broadly and permit reliance on FLSA guidance. The juxtaposition creates interpretive tension that spurred certification.
• Mercado v. S&C Electric Co., 2025 IL 129526
  Illinois Supreme Court recognizes FLSA guidance as “probative,” yet not necessarily controlling—bolstering need for clarification.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

The panel (Judges Scudder, Kirsch, and Maldonado) undertook a meticulous state-law analysis:

1. Textual Comparison – IMWL mirrors FLSA overtime language but omits PPA exclusions. Under expressio unius canon, omission may signal legislative intent to provide broader coverage.
2. Regulatory Context – Illinois DOL’s §210.110 mirrors the expansive pre-PPA “all time on premises” rule, whereas §210.120 invites federal guidance generally. The regulations point in opposite directions, producing genuine ambiguity.
3. Case-Law Trends – Federal and Illinois courts routinely consult FLSA jurisprudence for IMWL interpretation; yet, none have squarely addressed preliminary/postliminary exclusions. Prior reliance on federal standards is persuasive but not dispositive.
4. Certification Standards – Applying factors from Finite Resources v. DTE Methane and others, the panel found certification appropriate: unresolved state question, vital public interest, likelihood of recurrence, and outcome-determinative nature.

3. Potential Impact

The forthcoming Illinois Supreme Court answer could reshape wage litigation across the state:

• Scope of Compensable Time under IMWL: A ruling that the PPA exclusions do not apply would dramatically broaden what activities must be paid—extending to daily security screenings, donning/doffing PPE, biometric scans, etc.
• Employer Compliance Costs: Businesses operating in Illinois may face retroactive liability for unpaid minutes that aggregate into substantial overtime, particularly in logistics, healthcare, food processing, and manufacturing sectors.
• Forum Choice: Plaintiffs may increasingly plead state-law-only wage claims to bypass restrictive federal standards, while employers may seek federal jurisdiction to leverage the PPA—but Johnson suggests federal judges will defer to state tribunals.
• Federalism & Certification Practice: The decision underscores the Seventh Circuit’s willingness to certify critical wage-and-hour issues even after decades of relying on federal guidance, thereby fortifying state supremacy in labor standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA)

A 1947 federal statute narrowing what counts as “work” by excluding ordinary travel and certain pre-/post-shift activities unless they are integral to the job.

Preliminary/Postliminary Activities

Tasks performed before an employee’s principal work starts or after it ends, such as waiting in line, health screenings, or walking across a plant.

Integral and Indispensable Test

An activity is compensable under the PPA only if the employee cannot perform their main job without it, and it is an intrinsic element of their work.

Certification to State Supreme Court

Procedure allowing federal appellate courts to ask a state’s highest court to resolve unsettled questions of state law rather than predicting the answer.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

A Latin canon of statutory construction: when a law expressly mentions one thing, courts assume it intentionally omitted others.

Conclusion

Johnson v. Amazon is less about the compensability of COVID-19 screenings and more about delineating the boundary between federal and state wage protections. By certifying the question, the Seventh Circuit:

• Recognized genuine ambiguity in Illinois’ statutory and regulatory framework concerning preliminary/postliminary exclusions.
• Affirmed the primacy of state courts in deciding the breadth of state labor rights, honoring the FLSA’s savings clause.
• Set a procedural precedent for future wage-and-hour disputes that uncover latent conflicts between Illinois regulations and federal interpretations.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s forthcoming answer will either align Illinois law with the PPA or untether it, potentially making Illinois one of the most employee-protective jurisdictions in the nation with respect to pre- and post-shift activities. Until then, employers and employees alike are left in a holding pattern, awaiting definitive guidance on what time truly counts as “hours worked” under the IMWL.