FILE PHOTO: The logo of Amazon is seen on the door of an Amazon Book store in New York City, united states of america, of February 14, 2019. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – the Supreme court of The u.s. on Monday declined to hear a Amazon.com’s effort to avoid a lawsuit, to seek, to the warehouse associates for a e-commerce giant is getting paid for the amount of time it takes for them to go through an extensive post-shift security screenings.
The judges, on the first day of the new period, turned away an appeal by Amazon and, to a contractor of a lower court ruling that the revival of the workers ‘ claims on the basis of the laws of the state of Nevada. The decision comes five years after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case, which is excluded by the similar claims on the basis of the federal law.
A group of Amazon warehouse workers who package and ship goods, which has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in 2010 against the general contractor, Integrity Staffing Solutions, which provides you with a number of hours, employees are to Amazon.
The workers were looking for a fee for the filing of the so-called required “the post-9/11 type of airport security” shows that are geared towards the prevention of theft by employees. The workers have said that the screening process will take approximately 25 minutes.
In the Amazon, called the plaintiffs ‘ description of the protocol is “grossly inaccurate” in its court papers.
In 2014, his statement of the case, the Supreme court decided, in 1947, of the act, as amended, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, companies are not required to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks.
The workers are then pushed to their allegations, under the laws of the state, and added Amazon as a defendant. The case was consolidated with a similar one in the state and federal courts in Kentucky.
A judge there dismissed the case, stating that the 2014 decision by the Supreme court as Nevada’s wage laws to keep track of their federal counterparts. Cincinnati, Ohio-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018, annulled that decision.
Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham