The U.S. Supreme Court questioned whether workers at Amazon.comInc. warehouses must be paid for time spent undergoing post-shiftsecurity searches in a case that will shape the power of employersover hourly workers.

Hearing arguments today in Washington, the justices suggestedthey are divided on the workers' contention that federal lawrequires compensation for time spent in security lines. Thehour-long session touched on topics as diverse as Amazon's systemfor counting toothbrushes and a judge who required law clerks tocut his grapefruit.

The justices are considering a suit against a company thatstaffs Amazon's facilities, filed by former workers in two Nevadawarehouses. The case centers on the scope of a federal wagelaw.

Justice Elena Kagan emerged as the most likely vote in favor ofthe workers. She suggested the screenings helped Amazon withinventory control, meeting a test the court laid out in a 1956decision requiring compensation for activities that are “integraland indispensable” to the job itself.

“What's really important to Amazon is that it knows where everytoothbrush in the warehouse is,” she said.

Other justices expressed skepticism, including Stephen Breyer,who said he was influenced by the Obama administration's rejectionof the workers' position.

“Probably I'd say go with the Labor Department,” Breyer told theworkers' lawyer, Mark Thierman. “They are the ones who are incharge of this. And they are saying you lose.”

The case underscores the tension between employers seeking tominimize costs and workers who may suffer the consequences. Whilecompanies use the screening to guard against theft, employees saywhat's being taken is their own time, for Amazon's benefit.

The case may affect several pending lawsuits. Apple Inc., CVSHealth Corp., J.C. Penney Co., TJX Cos. and Ross Stores Inc. areall battling similar cases involving either distribution centers orstores. Similar claims are also being pressed directly againstAmazon.

The suit before the high court was filed by former employees ofIntegrity Staffing Solutions Inc., which provides temporary workersfor Amazon.

Integrity's lawyer, Paul Clement, said the security screeningsare “materially similar” to the process of checking out at the endof a work day, something that longstanding Labor Departmentregulations say isn't compensable.

Metal Detectors

The employees, Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, say workers had tospend as much as 25 minutes after their shifts waiting to passthrough metal detectors. “We're not talking trivial here,” Thiermantold the justices.

Amazon rejected that characterization. “Data shows thatemployees walk through post-shift security screening with little orno wait,” Kelly Cheeseman, a company spokeswoman, said in ane-mail.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Thierman's contention thatthe security screening was a “principal activity,” entitling theworkers to compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. “Noone's principal activity is going through security screening,” hesaid.

The “principal activity” argument prompted a discussion aboutgrapefruit. It started when Kagan asked about an unidentifiedfederal judge who years ago required his law clerks to “cut hisgrapefruit and otherwise make breakfast for him.”

She asked Justice Department lawyer Curtis Gannon whether thatwould be compensable. Gannon said it would be, though federaljudges aren't covered by the wage law.

Later, Justice Samuel Alito said the grapefruit scenario wasdifferent because it involved a specific task that the judge mighthire someone else to do.

“But this is different, isn't it?” Alito said. “Because youwouldn't pay anybody just to come in and go through” a securityline.

A federal appeals court let the suit proceed. If the SupremeCourt sides with the workers, the case will move forward in afederal trial court.

Ultimately, Amazon and various staffing agencies it uses couldbe required to pay as many as 400,000 workers back wages amountingto $100 million or more, according to plaintiffs' attorneysinvolved in the case.

Seattle-based Amazon, the world's No. 2 online retailer bymarket capitalization after Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., has built areputation for selling goods at low prices and delivering themquickly and inexpensively, with tiny margins.

That success rides on the company's network of massivewarehouses — more than 40 so-called fulfillment centers in the U.S.alone, according to the company, staffed by 40,000 workers,swelling to 110,000 during the holiday season.

The case is Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, 13-433. Thecourt will rule by June.

Bloomberg News

Copyright 2018 Bloomberg. All rightsreserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,or redistributed.