Illinois Supreme Court Clears Path for Overtime Class Actions Involving Security Checkpoints

In a much anticipated decision, the Illinois Supreme Court, in Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, 2026 IL 132016 (2026), held that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law’s, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. (“IMWL”), definition of “hours worked” differs in a significant way from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (“FLSA”), standard, which is likely to result in a tidal wave of new IMWL overtime class actions in the near future. Specifically, the Court held that the Portal-to-Portal Act and its limitations on what is and is not compensable work before and after an employee’s shift does not apply to the IMWL. The IMWL is instead governed by a more employee friendly standard requiring compensation for all time the employee is required to be on the employer’s premises, even if such time does not involve the performance of the employee’s job duties.

Illinois Minimum Wage Law

The Illinois Minimum Wage Law establishes minimum requirements with regard to the payment of wages for hours worked. One such requirement is the section 4(a)(1) requirement to pay an employee an overtime rate (1.5 times the normal hourly rate) for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a work week. The Illinois Department of Labor (“IDOL”) defines “hours worked” to include “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.” 56 Ill. Adm. Code 210.110 (eff. Nov. 15, 1996).

Prior to the Court’s decision, there was a debate regarding whether an employee’s time on the employer’s premises before and after the employee’s actual work shift should be considered “hours worked” under the IDOL regulation or excluded from “hours worked” to allow the IMWL to mirror the FLSA on this issue. The Portal-to-Portal Act (applicable to FLSA claims) provides that preliminary and postliminary tasks unrelated to the employee’s principal job duties do not constitute hours worked for purposes of determining minimum wage and overtime compliance rights. The question was whether the IMWL incorporated the Portal-to-Portal Act’s limitation on what is and is not compensable work before and after a work shift.

Johnson and the IMWL

Johnson teed this issue up for the Illinois Supreme Court by asking whether the COVID-related health screenings that Amazon employees were required to participate in before their work shift constituted hours worked under the IMWL. The employees were required to undergo the screenings prior to clocking in, which resulted in Amazon not compensating them for this time (approximately 10-15 minutes each day). A group of Amazon employees filed a class action alleging, among other things, that this practice violated the IMWL because it failed to compensate them for time they were required to be on the employer’s premises and which was necessary for the performance of their jobs.

In response to a motion to dismiss, the district court held that the IMWL incorporated the Portal-to-Portal Act’s exclusion of preliminary and postliminary activities that are unrelated to the employee’s principal job duties from the definition of hours worked. Based on this finding, the district court dismissed the employees’ IMWL claim because a COVID health screening was a preliminary activity unrelated to their principal job duties. The employees appealed this decision to the Seventh Circuit, which certified the following issue for the Illinois Supreme Court to decide: does section 4a of the IMWL incorporate the exclusion from compensation for employee activities that are preliminary or postliminary to their principal activities, as provided under the Portal-to-Portal Act?

The Illinois Supreme Court answered this question with a resounding “no,” holding that there is nothing in the IMWL that explicitly incorporates the Portal-to-Portal Act. More importantly, the Court held that section 4a of the IMWL intends for the IDOL to determine what constitutes “hours worked” for purposes of the IMWL’s minimum wage and overtime requirements, which it did in 56 Ill. Adm. Code 210.110. That regulation defines “hours worked” to include “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.” Id. As the COVID screenings were time the workers were required to be on their employer’s premises, it is compensable time under the IMWL (even if not compensable under the FLSA).

What Does This Mean For Employers?

For decades, the Portal-to-Portal Act has been used to defend overtime class actions based on tasks unrelated to the employee’s principal job activities that are performed before or after a work shift. Now, there is no such defense for overtime and minimum wage claims asserted under the IMWL, and the inquiry is simply whether the employee is required to be on the employer’s premises or on duty at the time. This suggests that Illinois will see a flurry of class actions challenging employer requirements to pass through security, gather equipment or tools, change clothes or into specific uniforms or equipment, and any tasks required to be performed before clocking in (or after clocking out).

Employers should review their procedures and policies and consider making changes, such as allowing the employee to clock in prior to engaging in these activities (and not clocking out until after they are completed). If you have any questions about this decision or the IMWL generally, please contact your Quarles attorney or:

Gary Clark: (312) 715-5040 / gary.clark@quarles.com

Rucha Shastri: (312) 715-2734 / rucha.shastri@quarles.com