Written by: JGLawOffice TeamLast updated: July 2026Educational content only. Not legal advice.
Wage problems do not always begin with an employee working an obvious unpaid hour. More often, the disputed time sits around the edges of the scheduled shift. Employees pass through a checkpoint, collect equipment, start required software, attend a short meeting, return a device, or wait for a supervisor after the payroll system has stopped recording time.
Those small intervals deserve closer attention after the Illinois decisions in Johnson v. Amazon.com Services. An employer cannot assume that an activity is unpaid simply because it happens before clock-in, after clock-out, or outside the employee's principal task. When recurring minutes are not recorded, the issue can develop into a dispute over regular wages, overtime, payroll records, and broader wage and overtime claims.
Quick answer for Illinois employers
The practical answer: Illinois employers should review every mandatory activity that occurs before an employee can clock in and after recorded time ends. Federal Portal-to-Portal exclusions do not automatically decide whether that time is compensable under Illinois law.
- Illinois does not automatically exclude an activity merely because it is preliminary or postliminary to an employee's principal duties.
- Required presence on the employer's premises is an important part of the Illinois hours-worked definition.
- Mandatory screenings, equipment procedures, system logins, meetings, and checkout tasks should be reviewed against the actual workflow.
- A policy prohibiting off-the-clock work may not solve a system that predictably creates unrecorded time.
- The Johnson litigation is continuing after remand, so employers should not treat the decisions as a universal ruling that every pre-shift minute must be paid.
The biggest risk is often not a written instruction telling employees to work for free. It is an operating process that makes an activity necessary before the time clock becomes available or after the system has already recorded the end of the shift.
What Johnson v Amazon changed in Illinois
The Johnson plaintiffs worked as hourly employees in Illinois Amazon warehouses. They alleged that Amazon required them to complete COVID-19 health screenings before they were allowed to clock in. According to the allegations described by the courts, the screenings typically took about 10 to 15 minutes and occurred on Amazon's property before paid work began.
The federal district court originally dismissed the Illinois Minimum Wage Law claim by applying the federal Portal-to-Portal Act's exclusion for certain preliminary activities. The Seventh Circuit then asked the Illinois Supreme Court whether Illinois law incorporated that federal exclusion.
In its Johnson opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court answered no. The court concluded that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law does not incorporate the federal exclusion for preliminary and postliminary activities. It emphasized that Illinois Department of Labor regulations define hours worked to include time when an employee is required to be on duty, on the employer's premises, at another prescribed workplace, or otherwise required or permitted to work.
The Seventh Circuit subsequently reversed the dismissal and returned the case to the district court. It also declined to add a general federal-style test requiring the employees to prove that the activity was performed primarily for the employer's benefit. The court explained that the claim should be evaluated under the Illinois statute and the applicable IDOL regulations.
This does not mean Amazon has finally lost the underlying case or that every activity before clock-in is compensable. It means two broad federal-style defenses cannot simply be imported into Illinois law to end the analysis.
Why federal wage rules are no longer enough
Federal and Illinois wage law overlap, but they are not identical. Multistate employers often create one national policy around federal standards and assume that the same approach will produce the same answer in every jurisdiction. Johnson shows why that assumption can be risky in Illinois.
Illinois courts may use federal authority as guidance when state and federal provisions are parallel. But where Illinois chose different statutory language or IDOL adopted a different definition, federal exclusions do not override the state framework. A policy labeled FLSA compliant may therefore still require a separate Illinois review.
This matters most for businesses that use standardized operating procedures across warehouses, stores, clinics, restaurants, offices, or manufacturing facilities. A national process may place time clocks after security checkpoints, prevent early punches, or require the same equipment procedures in every state. The operational consistency may be efficient, but the legal result can vary.
Employer takeaway: do not ask only whether the activity is preliminary under federal law. Ask whether Illinois treats the employee as being required to be on duty, on the premises, at another prescribed place of work, or otherwise required or permitted to work.
What counts as required time under Illinois rules
The Illinois definition of hours worked is broad. It includes all time an employee is required to be on duty, on the employer's premises, or at another prescribed place of work, plus additional time the employee is required or permitted to work for the employer.
That definition does not create an automatic answer for every workplace activity. It does, however, give employers a more useful audit framework than simply asking whether the task occurred before or after the scheduled shift.
Was the activity required
A requirement does not always appear in a written policy. It can arise from manager instructions, building access rules, consistent workplace expectations, or a process employees cannot avoid if they want to begin or finish their shift.
Where did the activity occur
Time on the employer's premises is expressly relevant under the Illinois regulation. Employers should identify whether workers must enter a controlled area, report to a particular station, wait in a designated line, or remain at another prescribed location.
Could the employee record the time
The physical and technical placement of the timekeeping system matters. If employees cannot clock in until after a required checkpoint or must clock out before returning equipment, the system may not capture the actual workflow.
Did management know about the work
Employers should examine what supervisors instruct, expect, observe, or routinely permit. A handbook statement against off-the-clock work does not fully describe what happens if managers regularly require tasks outside recorded hours.
Pre shift activities employers should audit
Pre-shift risk often appears when an employee has already arrived at the required workplace but cannot yet record time. The employee may need to pass through a process, prepare essential equipment, or complete a task before the time clock or payroll application becomes accessible.
Employers should review recurring activities such as:
- Security or bag checks that employees must complete before reaching the time clock.
- Health and safety screenings required as a condition of entering the active workplace.
- Equipment pickup involving scanners, radios, keys, tools, devices, or assigned materials.
- Protective equipment procedures that must be completed at a specific workplace location.
- Cash drawer or workstation preparation performed before the recorded shift begins.
- Computer startup and software login when required systems take time to become operational.
- Pre-shift meetings described as brief or informal but treated as mandatory.
- Assignment review required before an employee may begin the scheduled task.
- Waiting in a controlled area after employees have been instructed to report at a specific time.
None of these categories is automatically compensable in every setting. The review should focus on whether the activity is mandatory, where it occurs, who controls it, how frequently it happens, how long it lasts, and whether employees can record the time.
Post shift activities that can create the same problem
Employers should not limit the audit to the start of a shift. Similar gaps can appear at the end of the workday, particularly when employees are expected to clock out before completing a final operational or security step.
Common post-shift activities worth reviewing include:
- Returning equipment such as radios, keys, scanners, vehicles, or controlled tools.
- Security and bag inspections required before employees may leave the facility.
- Closing cash registers or reconciling drawers after customer-facing duties end.
- Uploading reports or records that must be completed before departure.
- Finishing required documentation after the scheduled shift or automatic clock-out.
- Logging out of several systems or completing required data synchronization.
- Cleaning tools or required work areas before equipment can be returned.
- Waiting for manager approval before being released from the workplace.
- End-of-shift inspections involving safety, inventory, equipment, or facility checks.
A recurring disconnect between recorded clock-out time and the completion of these duties can create the same type of wage issue as an unpaid pre-shift process. The label attached to the task matters less than how the workplace actually operates.
Where unrecorded time can appear around a shift
A simple timeline can make the issue easier to identify. The official shift may sit in the middle, while the unrecorded activity appears immediately before and after it.
The timekeeping system may be the real problem
Some wage disputes are caused less by the written pay policy than by the design of the timekeeping process. The software may record scheduled hours accurately while missing the operational steps that surround those hours.
Warning signs include:
- employees cannot clock in until they pass through a mandatory checkpoint;
- time clocks are physically located beyond security, equipment, or changing areas;
- the payroll system blocks punches before the scheduled start time;
- supervisors tell employees to arrive early for preparation or assignment review;
- automatic meal or time deductions occur without verification;
- managers repeatedly edit actual punches back to scheduled hours;
- mobile applications prevent punches outside a narrow geofence;
- automatic clock-out occurs before final documentation or equipment return is complete.
A written rule stating that off-the-clock work is prohibited does not necessarily correct a workflow that predictably causes or permits it. Employers should compare the written policy with what employees and supervisors actually do every day.
Recurring system and manager practices are often easier to address through ongoing employment policy and risk review before a payroll complaint forces the company to reconstruct years of records.
Employer workflow audit table
A useful review connects each operational step with the evidence the business already creates. Access systems, login records, equipment logs, security video, schedules, and payroll punches can reveal whether recorded hours align with the actual work process.
| Workflow | Potential Illinois concern | What to verify | Useful evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security screening | Required presence before clock-in | Whether screening is mandatory and where time becomes recordable | Policies, badge logs, video, punch data |
| Equipment pickup | Required preparation may occur off the clock | Whether equipment is necessary before assigned work begins | Checkout records, manager messages, device logs |
| Computer login | Systems may take time to become usable | Whether employees can clock in before startup and authentication | Login timestamps, application logs, punch records |
| Pre-shift meeting | Mandatory attendance may occur before recorded time | Whether attendance is expected and when employees may punch in | Calendars, messages, attendance records |
| Equipment return | Required work may continue after clock-out | When employees clock out compared with return completion | Device logs, security records, return sheets |
| Automatic deductions | Recorded time may differ from actual working time | Whether deductions and edits are individually verified | Payroll rules, edit reports, complaints, manager approvals |
The most useful audit compares system-generated timestamps against payroll punches. Written policies rarely show how long employees wait, when required software becomes usable, or whether a checkout procedure continues after time recording ends.
Why a few minutes can become a larger wage claim
A single short delay may not look significant when viewed in isolation. The exposure becomes more serious when the same process repeats across every shift, affects many employees, or pushes workers beyond 40 hours in a workweek.
Several factors can increase the scale of a dispute:
- the activity occurs daily or several times per week;
- the same rule applies across a department, building, or group of locations;
- employees already work close to or above 40 hours;
- manager instructions are consistent across the workforce;
- timekeeping restrictions are built into a centralized payroll system;
- historical records make the same pattern visible over a long period.
Standardization can be helpful operationally, but it can also expand a wage dispute when the standardized process consistently excludes time. An employer may therefore face not only an individual complaint but a broader challenge to a common payroll practice.
What employers should change now
The immediate response should be a factual process review, not panic or a blanket assumption that every minute on company property must be paid. Employers need to understand where required activity begins, when time recording becomes available, and whether actual work continues after the recorded shift.
A practical review should include the following steps:
- map every required activity before and after recorded shifts;
- identify where physical terminals or mobile punches become available;
- review restrictions that prevent employees from clocking in early;
- compare badge, login, device, security, and punch timestamps;
- interview supervisors about actual reporting and checkout instructions;
- review automatic deductions and recurring punch edits;
- create a clear process for reporting and correcting missed time;
- train managers not to request work outside recorded hours;
- review national policies separately for Illinois operations;
- preserve payroll audit reports and policy version history.
The goal is to make recorded time match the actual workflow rather than forcing the workflow to fit scheduled punches. Vendor settings, payroll provisions, and recurring templates may also warrant contract and policy review when outside providers control important parts of the system.
FAQ
Does Illinois require payment for all pre-shift activity
No. Johnson rejects an automatic exclusion based on the federal Portal-to-Portal Act, but compensability still depends on the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, IDOL regulations, and the actual facts. Employers should review whether the activity is required, where it occurs, how it is controlled, and whether the time is recorded.
Are mandatory security checks compensable in Illinois
Mandatory checks require close review, particularly when employees must complete them on the employer's premises before reaching the time clock or after clocking out. The answer depends on the specific process rather than the label placed on the check.
Does federal Portal-to-Portal law control Illinois wage claims
Not automatically. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law does not incorporate the federal exclusion for preliminary and postliminary activities.
Can employees be required to arrive early without pay
An employer can establish reporting expectations, but mandatory unpaid activity before clock-in may create wage exposure. The analysis should focus on what employees are actually required to do after arriving and whether they can record that time.
Is computer startup time compensable
It depends on the workflow. Relevant questions include whether startup is necessary to perform the job, whether employees can clock in before beginning it, how long the process takes, and whether managers know that it occurs outside recorded time.
Does Johnson apply to post-shift work too
The certified legal question concerned both preliminary and postliminary activity exclusions generally, although the underlying allegations involved pre-shift health screenings. Post-shift procedures should therefore be part of the same employer audit.
Did Amazon finally lose the case
No. The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. The decisions resolve important legal interpretation questions but do not amount to a final merits judgment on every disputed fact.
What should Illinois employers audit first
Start with mandatory checkpoints, clock-in restrictions, equipment pickup and return, computer login time, pre-shift meetings, automatic deductions, and manager-directed work outside recorded hours.
Where the unpaid minutes usually hide
The disputed minutes usually sit between the official schedule and operational reality. The handbook may prohibit off-the-clock work, while the entrance layout still places the time clock after a mandatory checkpoint. The payroll system may show a precise start time, while employees must load several applications before they can perform their first recorded task. The shift may end at 5:00, while equipment return and manager approval continue afterward.
Those gaps are easier to identify before a complaint than after discovery begins. Employers should compare employee movement, access data, system activity, manager instructions, and payroll records while the people who understand the process can still explain it clearly.
Concerned about unrecorded time around employee shifts
Businesses using mandatory screenings, equipment procedures, system login requirements, automatic deductions, or recurring punch corrections may benefit from reviewing those workflows before they become part of a wage dispute.