Employment Law Update: Maryland Supreme Court Decides Not To Trifle With Wage And Hour Claims
Date: July 11, 2025
The Maryland Supreme Court ruling was in response to the certification of the question regarding the application of the de minimis rule from the federal U.S. District Court of Maryland. The case is a class action, brought by a former Amazon.com Services employee, on behalf of herself and approximately 24,000 other class workers, seeking unpaid compensation spent in security lines waiting for time to exit the building after clocking out.
For the plaintiff in the case, Ms. Martinez, an analysis of her time showed that for the vast majority of her shifts, she took an average of five minutes or less to exit security after clocking out. For only about 25% of the total shifts, did the time between clocking out and exiting security, exceeded five minutes, and in only 10% of the shifts analyzed, did the time exceed 15 minutes. Calculating potential damages on this information, a consultant determined that Ms. Martinez's claim for unpaid wages over a six-month period was worth no more than $161.65.
In reaching its decision, the Maryland Supreme Court examined the application of the rule to claims brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, particularly a U.S. Supreme Court case, Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Company, 328 U.S. 680 (1946). In that venerable case, the U.S. Supreme Court noted, in reference to a comparable wage claim, 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. Split-second absurdities are not justified by the actualities of working conditions …”
Noting the general applicability of the rule to the FLSA, the Maryland Supreme Court concluded that the Maryland legislature intended for the de minimis rule to likewise apply to the State’s counterpart law, adding that “ … had the General Assembly not intended a de minimis rule to apply to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law’s provisions concerning the compensability of work, … we believe it would have said so.” Although Maryland regulations require and employer to pay wages for time “during a workweek that an individual … is required by the employer to be on the employer’s premises, on duty, or at a prescribed workplace,” the wage and hour laws, are not intended to impose liability on employers for “split-second absurdities.”
In so ruling, the Court also drew a distinction between the law in other states, where the rule was deemed not to apply, pointing out that those statutes required payment “for all hours worked,” while the Maryland law only required payment of wages “due to an employee for employment.”
The net effect of the decision will now be for the U.S. District Court to decide whether the lost wages being claimed actually fall within the de minimis rule. How the District Court rules will be the next chapter to watch. The impact of the decision, however, is favorable to Maryland employers, particularly where working conditions, be they screening procedures or other circumstances where there may be minor discrepancies between employee clock-in and clock-out times, and when they are outside of the workplace, create similar scenarios to those raised in the Martinez case.
Given the nature of potential damages under Maryland Wage & Hour law, and the potential for an award of attorneys fees, all employers are urged to review on a regular basis their payroll and timekeeping practices to ensure they are compliant with Maryland law.
The information contained here is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be acted upon without consulting an attorney. Counsel should not be selected based on advertising materials, and we recommend that you conduct further investigation when seeking legal representation.