Mandatory pre- and post-shift activities are now compensable in Illinois

By SCOTT CRUZ

Pre- and post-shift activities—security screenings, health checks, equipment donning and doffing, clock-in procedures, and compliance checks—are common in modern workplaces. Yet these activities sit at the intersection of operational efficiency and wage-and-hour compliance, making them a frequent source of wage and hour litigation.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s (the Court”) March 19, 2026 decision in Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC is a landmark ruling that significantly reshapes what is considered compensable time for mandatory pre- and post-shift activities under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”).

The plaintiffs in Johnson were hourly, non-exempt (i.e. overtime eligible) employees working in Amazon fulfillment centers in Illinois. In March 2020, Amazon required these employees to undergo mandatory COVID-19 health screenings before clocking in. The screenings included temperature checks and symptom questionnaires conducted at the facility’s entrance. Employees were not permitted to clock in until after completing the screenings.

The employees alleged that these screenings generally lasted 10 to 15 minutes and sometimes longer. Amazon did not pay the employees for the time they spent waiting for and completing the screenings. The employees alleged that Amazon violated the overtime provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the IMWL by failing to pay for what they deemed to be compensable work time, resulting overtime each week.

An Illinois federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”) exception to the FLSA excluded the screening time from compensable work under the FLSA. The PPA amendment to the FLSA excludes from “compensable” work time so-called “preliminary or postliminary” activities that non-exempt hourly employees may be required to perform before clocking-in for the start of their shift, or after clocking-out at the end of their shift. Such preliminary or postliminary activities may include things like commuting (walking from the facility entrance to the time clock), changing clothes, security screenings, and donning and doffing certain work-related protective equipment. These kinds of activities are not compensable under the FLSA, unless they are “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s principal duties.

The same district court also dismissed the Illinois overtime claims under the IMWL, reasoning that Illinois state and federal courts frequently look to case authority interpreting and applying the FLSA for guidance in interpreting the IMWL. In addition, it recognized that a number of Illinois federal district courts, as well as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana) on one occasion, had previously applied the PPA’s exclusions to IMWL claims.

The employees appealed, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court asking whether the IMWL incorporates the FLSA’s PPA’s preliminary and postliminary exception to compensable work requirements. The Court held that the IMWL does not incorporate the FLSA’s PPA’s exclusion for preliminary and postliminary compensable activities.

That distinction is a game changer for Illinois employers, because mandatory pre-and post-shift activities that may not be compensable under the FLSA, are now compensable under the IMWL.

Indeed, the Court ruled that the IMWL “explicitly encompass[es] all time that an employee is required to be on an employer’s premises,” regardless of the reason the employee is required to be on the employer’s premises. The Court relied on the plain language of the IMWL, reasoning that while the PPA had amended the FLSA to exclude certain preliminary and postliminary activities, the IMWL contains no similar exclusion. The Court emphasized that it may not read exceptions into a statute, which the Illinois legislature chose not to include.

The Court also relied on Illinois Department of Labor regulations, which define “hours worked” for purposes IMWL compliance as “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.” It concluded that this broad definition includes mandatory pre-shift and post-shift activities when employees are required to be present at the workplace.

The Johnson decision makes clear that compliance with the FLSA’s preliminary and postliminary exception to compensable work will no longer exonerate an Illinois employers’ failure to comply with IMWL’s broad definition of “hours worked,” as it relates to mandatory pre-shift and post-shift activities when non-exempt hourly employees are required to be on their employers’ premises.

Consequently, pre-and post-shift activities that non-exempt hourly employees undertake while required to be in the workplace, which an Illinois employer may have historically treated as non-compensable, are now compensable under the IMWL. Key risk factors include activities that are mandatory, occur on the employer’s premises, and are performed for the employer’s benefit. Examples may include health screenings, security checks, equipment donning and doffing, mandatory early arrival, and post-shift checkout procedures.

Accordingly, in light of Johnson, Illinois employers should begin reviewing their current wage-hour compliance strategies to account for this broader definition of compensable work time. Written wage and hour policies should match actual practices consistent with the Johnson decision, and supervisors should be trained to avoid encouraging off-the-clock work and should be trained on this broader definition of compensable work time.  Indeed, even small amounts of unpaid time can create significant liability when aggregated across an entire workforce.

Illinois employers also need to immediately begin paying their non-exempt hourly employees for any time spent in mandatory pre- and post-shift activities when they are required to be present at the workplace, or begin taking steps to restructure operations so that these mandatory pre- and post-shift activities occur after the employees have clocked in.  Timekeeping systems should be aligned with this new reality, allowing employees to clock in at the point where employer-required activities begin.

For Illinois employers, the Johnson case underscores the importance of carefully evaluating all required work-related activities that occur before or after scheduled shifts. Proactive compliance efforts, thoughtful policy design, and accurate timekeeping practices will be essential to reducing legal risk and ensuring employees are properly compensated.

 

Scott Cruz is a partner in the Labor & Employment Practice Group of UB Greensfelder LLP’s Chicago, O’Fallon, Ill., and St. Louis, Mo., offices. He can be reached at (312) 658-6608 or [email protected].