Introduction:  On February 20, 2026, in Del. Rio v. Amazon.com Servs., the Connecticut Supreme Court departed from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Portal-to-Portal Act in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk which held that time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Connecticut Supreme Court held that, unlike the FLSA, under the Connecticut wage laws, the time is compensable and that the Connecticut wage laws have not adopted a de minimis exception.

Summary of Case:  The plaintiffs in Del Rio were Amazon employees who alleged that they were not compensated for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings before leaving Amazon's premises following their shift.  They testified that these procedures took between a second or two to 20 minutes.  The putative class action was brought pursuant to the Connecticut wage laws but was removed to federal district court (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut) pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (a federal law which permits removal of state law class action claims when there is $5 million in controversy and certain other requirements are met.)  The District Court granted summary judgment by concluding that the purpose of the Connecticut overtime law was to make Connecticut coextensive with the FLSA and, in doing so, looked to federal precedent interpreting FLSA for guidance, namely Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.  In doing so, the court held that time employees spend in security screenings is not compensable because going through security screenings is not time “indispensable to the performance of their productive work and integrally related to their duties.”  Plaintiffs appealed.  The Second Circuit certified two issues to the Connecticut Supreme Court, namely:  (1) whether, under Connecticut's wage laws, time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings on an employer's premises is compensable and; (2) if so, whether a de minimis exception applies.

 Holding: On February 10, 2026, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that Connecticut wage laws is more protective than the FLSA.  Unlike the FLSA which did not define “work” or “workweek”, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-76(b)(2)(A) defines the amount of hours worked as “all time during which an employee is required by the employer to be on the employer's premises or to be on duty, or to be at the prescribed work place, and all time during which an employee is employed or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so, provided time allowed for meals shall be excluded unless the employee is required or permitted to work. Such time includes, but shall not be limited to, the time when an employee is required to wait on the premises while no work is provided by the employer." (Emphasis added.)  Because of the unambiguous language, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that “working time” includes time that Amazon required their employees to be on premises to be screened. Moreover, the Court concluded that the Connecticut has not adopted the de minimis exception. 

Implications of Del. Rio:  The FLSA provides the minimum standards for wage and overtime standards; however, state law can set higher standards.  As such, employers in Connecticut must comply with requirements that provide the most protection to employees.  Employers in Connecticut must review policies and practices to ensure employees are compensated for all time employees are required to be on premises, even if not performing activities integral to their work. 

For more questions about this legal alert, the Fair Labor Standards Act or the Connecticut Wage Laws, please contact Robin B. Kallor or the attorney with whom you already work.