Cases Provide Important Guidance on Pay for Security Screenings, Whistleblowers

The following article first appeared in the News & Insights section of Carmody Torrance Sandak Hennessey’s website. It is reposted here with permission.

---

Two recent decisions from the Connecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court expand employee protections in the areas of wage and hour law and whistleblower complaints, and reinforce two important points for Connecticut employers:

1. Employees who are required to be on the employer’s premises must be paid for that time
2. Employee complaints to public agencies regarding health and safety issues should be addressed carefully

Pay for All Time on the Employer’s Premises  

In Del Rio v. Amazon.com Services, Inc., Amazon required its warehouse workers to undergo mandatory security screenings before leaving the premises at the end of their shift.

The Connecticut Supreme Court addressed whether the time spent by employees in these screenings was compensable.

The court interpreted Connecticut’s wage laws to require compensation for all time an employee is required to be on the employer’s premises, even if the employee is not actively performing job duties during that period.

The court also explicitly rejected the “de minimis” exception recognized under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which would allow employers to disregard small amounts of time as administratively insignificant. 

Key Takeaway for Employers

For Connecticut employers, the practical takeaway is straightforward—because state wage laws provide greater protection for employees, employers should pay employees for all time during which an employee is required to be on-site for security checks, badge-out procedures, equipment return, or similar pre- or post-shift requirements. 

A Shortcut for Whistleblowers 

In Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC, the Connecticut Appellate Court considered whether an employee who was terminated from her employment shortly after filing a complaint with a municipal health district could bring her whistleblower claim directly to court.

The employer argued that the employee’s claim should be dismissed on the grounds that she did not initially file a complaint with OSHA at the Department of Labor and, therefore, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

The Appellate Court disagreed and allowed the employee’s claim to proceed.

The court found that the employees’ complaint to the municipal health district focused on her concerns about people’s health as opposed to concerns about working conditions.

Therefore, the employee was not required to initially file a complaint with OSHA.  

Key Takeaway for Employers

For employers, the key point is that complaints to local or state agencies regarding health and safety issues should be treated as protected activity under Connecticut law.

Therefore, any adverse employment decisions taken shortly after the employee files such a complaint will be closely scrutinized to determine if it is for legitimate business reasons or retaliatory.

In this case, the employer terminated the employee’s employment two days after she filed her complaint, and one day after a representative of the municipal health district visited the employer’s premises to investigate the alleged health code violations. 

When employment decisions closely follow any protected activity, proper documentation and a strong basis for taking the action is especially important. 

---

About the authors: Nick Zaino is a partner at Carmody and co-leader of the firm’s Corporate & Business Group. Marc Dispenza is a third-year law student at Western New England University School of Law and is currently participating in an externship program at Carmody.