July 03, 2025|Publications
July 3, 2025 | Maryland Supreme Court | Certified Question from U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Executive Summary
In a certified question proceeding, the Maryland Supreme Court held that the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex applies to claims brought under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL) and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL). The case arose from a class action by Amazon fulfillment center workers seeking pay for time spent in post-shift security screenings. Amazon argued the time was negligible and thus noncompensable. The Court, in a majority opinion by Judge Biran, agreed, concluding that Maryland’s wage laws are patterned after the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which has long incorporated the de minimis doctrine. Judge Watts dissented, joined by Judge Eaves, arguing the Maryland statutes mandate pay for “all compensation that is due” and do not allow courts to carve out exceptions for “trifles.”
Relevant Background
Plaintiff Estefany Martinez worked as a “packer” at Amazon’s Baltimore fulfillment center from June 2017 to November 2021. Her duties involved sealing boxes and placing them on conveyor belts. Like other hourly employees, Martinez was required to clock out at the end of her shift before entering mandatory security screening areas at facility exits.
The security process consisted of metal detectors with three lanes: an “express lane” for employees without bags, a “divestment lane” for those carrying small items, and a “bag scan lane” with x-ray equipment that often created bottlenecks. Martinez routinely carried a backpack, choosing the bag scan lane, where she sometimes encountered lines of 20 people or more. She also testified that secondary screenings with a handheld wand occurred when detectors were triggered, adding a few seconds.
Amazon collected two forms of data: “time clock punch data” (when employees clocked out) and “exit swipe data” (when employees swiped their badges to leave). Economist Peter Nickerson analyzed 65 of Martinez’s shifts:
- 29% of shifts took 3 minutes or less between clock-out and exit;
- 41% took 3–5 minutes;
- 16% took 5–8 minutes;
- 9% took 15 minutes or more.
Amazon argued these figures showed variability and that Martinez often delayed for reasons unrelated to security. Martinez’s expert, Liesl Fox, calculated that she experienced 9.61 hours of uncompensated “paid-to-exit lag” over six months, worth approximately $161.65, including 1.95 hours of overtime.
Martinez filed suit in state court in December 2021 on behalf of herself and nearly 24,000 Maryland fulfillment center workers. Amazon removed to federal court, where the U.S. District Court certified to the Maryland Supreme Court the following question:
“Does the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, as described in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), and Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (2014), apply to claims brought under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law?”
Decision
The Court answered “yes,” holding that Maryland’s wage statutes incorporate a de minimis rule, even though neither statute expressly mentions it.
The Court began by emphasizing the link between Maryland’s wage laws and the FLSA: “This Court has described the MWHL as the State ‘equivalent,’ ‘parallel,’ ‘partner,’ and ‘counterpart’ of the FLSA” (Marshall v. Safeway, Inc., 437 Md. 542, 558, 88 A.3d 735 (2014)). Since Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that “when the matter in issue concerns only a few seconds or minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours, such trifles may be disregarded” (328 U.S. at 692).
Although Maryland declined to incorporate the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (see Amaya v. DGS Constr., LLC, 479 Md. 515, 555, 278 A.3d 1216 (2022)), the Court distinguished de minimis as part of the “original FLSA framework” rather than a later amendment. As Judge Biran wrote:
“We conclude that a de minimis rule applies to the Maryland Wage Laws. We acknowledge that neither the phrase ‘de minimis,’ nor a description of the doctrine using other words, is present in the plain language of the Wage Laws. However, the text of the FLSA also lacks any reference… yet the Supreme Court held in Anderson that the de minimis rule is applicable in computing the workweek.” Martinez, 2025 WL 1831265, at *13.
The Court rejected Martinez’s argument that “all compensation” language foreclosed the doctrine:
“The phrase ‘all compensation that is due’ is naturally read as meaning everything that is owed must be paid in full, but it does not tell us what compensation is owed. Such language does not preclude a de minimis rule because de minimis principles operate at the threshold question of what is ‘due.’” Id. at *13.
Judge Watts dissented, emphasizing Maryland’s statutory history of encouraging small claims litigation:
“The Majority has declared that some amount of time Maryland workers spend under the control of an employer may not be worthy of compensation. In my view, such an interpretation… is in direct contradiction to the General Assembly’s clear intent that employees be compensated for all time worked.” Id. at *32–33 (Watts, J., dissenting).
The Court noted it was not defining the precise scope of the doctrine: “How a trier of fact should determine whether a particular amount of time worked is or is not de minimis under the Maryland Wage Laws remains to be seen” (id. at 32 n.13).
Looking Forward
For franchisors and large employers, especially in logistics and retail, Martinez illustrates both opportunity and risk. On one hand, the decision aligns Maryland with federal law, allowing dismissal of claims for negligible time increments and reducing exposure to “split-second absurdities” (Anderson, 328 U.S. at 692). On the other hand, the Court left open how much time is too much, ensuring that disputes over minutes at shift boundaries will remain fact-intensive and jury-dependent.
Employers should carefully document security procedures, provide express guidance to minimize line delays, and track exit times to demonstrate that delays are incidental. Franchisors and multi-unit operators should also review whether system-wide practices—such as mandatory screenings, equipment checks, or uniform procedures—could generate aggregated claims. Even under a de minimis rule, class actions remain a viable vehicle for employees alleging consistent uncompensated time across thousands of shifts.
The dissent’s reasoning also suggests potential legislative pushback. Maryland’s General Assembly has repeatedly strengthened worker rights under the MWHL and MWPCL, including adding treble damages and attorney’s fees. If lawmakers view Martinez as weakening wage protections, statutory amendments may follow.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
