Amazon’s Baltimore fulfillment center
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Maryland's top judges disagree on what they should concern themselves with, but a majority nevertheless has struck a blow against class action lawyers.
The Maryland Supreme Court on July 3 possibly doomed a class action against Amazon that sought reimbursement for time employees spent on arguably trivial tasks, like passing through security screening areas before and after clocking in and out of work.
Cases like that can provide small amounts of backpay to class members but if the class is large enough, generate large fees for attorneys. The court held, in answering a question from a federal judge, that the state's Wage Payment Collection Law and Wage and Hour Law doesn't cover small matters like what plaintiff Estefany Martinez alleged.
"The Wage Laws require an employer to pay wages for time 'during a workweek that an individual... is required by the employer to be on the employer's premises, on duty, or at a prescribed workplace,’" Justice Jonathan Biran wrote.
"But the Wage Laws are not intended to impose liability on employers - small, medium or large - who fail to account for 'split-second absurdities' due to the 'realities of the industrial world' and the 'actualities of working conditions.'"
Two of the court's seven justices dissented, with Justice Shirley Watts writing the majority ruling will stop employees from bringing claims that the General Assembly encouraged when it amended the wage laws in 1993.
Attorneys at Joseph, Greenwald and Laake and the Winebrake Law Firm brought the case in 2021 seeking compensation for time employees spent going through security at three Amazon facilities. Martinez said there were times she was behind 20 other employees in a "bag scan lane" that she had to go through because she would bring her personal items with her rather than using the lockers supplied for workers.
Analysis from time clock and exit swipe data showed that it in 29% of a sample of Martinez's shifts, it took less than three minutes for her to exit the facility after clocking out. For 41% of shifts, it took 3-5 minutes.
Nine percent of the time it took her more than 15 minutes to leave after clocking out. Martinez's expert showed she actually worked almost 10 extra hours over a six-month period and would be owed an extra $161.
The question asked of the Supreme Court was whether the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex applied to claims in wages class actions in Maryland. The phrase means "the law doth not regard trifles."
In response, the justices dove into ever-evolving labor law, both at the federal and state level, writing the Fair Labor Standards Act lacks a reference to the de minimis rule but the U.S. Supreme Court has held it is applicable in computing a workweek.
Martinez's lawyer argued Maryland's wage laws defined wage as "all compensation that is due to an employee," which meant every bit of compensation, large or small, is part of an employee's wages.
But the majority disagreed, writing it actually meant "everything that is owed must be paid in full, but it does not tell us what compensation is owed."
"In short, when the General Assembly enacted the MWHL in 1965, it was clear that the de minimis doctrine applied to the FLSA," Biran wrote.
"Given its decision to pattern the MWHL on the FLSA, we presume that the General Assembly was aware of [the U.S. Supreme Court decision] and its recognition of the applicability of the de minimis doctrine in determining whether work is compensable under the FLSA, as well as Congress' acquiescence to that judicial interpretation."
But Justice Watts pointed at a 1993 amendment to state law that authorizes employees to sue for relatively small claims. The majority argued a "relatively small claim" is not the same as a de minimis claim.
Watts wrote: "Any argument that the General Assembly intended to incorporate the federal de minimis doctrine or a common law de minimis principle in the Maryland Wage Laws, and yet chose to amend the MWPCL in 1993 as it did to facilitate small claims, does not make sense."
