By Stephanie J. Peet and Daniel F. Thornton (Philadelphia)  

In a decision that may impact a large number of Pennsylvania employers, District Judge John F.  Murphy held that time spent “walking” from the entrance of a warehouse to the location of the  time clock is compensable under Pennsylvania wage law. Under federal law, such time is non compensable. The case is Davis v. Target Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28957, 2025 WL 553354  (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2025).  

The Facts  

Plaintiff Timothy Davis brought suit on behalf of a class of employees, including warehouse  workers, packers, and seasonal staff, who worked at a 1.3-million-square-foot Target distribution  center in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Mr. Davis claimed that Target failed to pay him for time  spent walking from the warehouse entrance to his assigned work department and vice versa. The  facility has a single entrance where employees swipe their security badges as they enter, then walk  along painted paths to their assigned departments for “start-up” meetings. Mr. Davis testified that  it took him from five to seven minutes to walk from the warehouse entrance to the time clock at  his assigned home department. Target’s policies instructed employees to use the timeclock at or  near their home department, and they could be disciplined for failing to do so.  

The Meaning of “Hours Worked”  

As the Court observed, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (PMWA), 43 P.S.  §§ 333.101 to .115, requires employers to pay their employees for all “hours worked” and to pay  overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. 43 P.S.  § 333.104(a). The PMWA regulations define “hours worked” as follows:  

Hours worked—The term includes  

[1] time during which an employee is required by the employer to be on the  premises of the employer,  

[2] to be on duty or to be at the prescribed work place,  

[3] time spent in traveling as part of the duties of the employee during  normal working hours and  

[4] time during which an employee is employed or permitted to work;  

provided, however, that time allowed for meals shall be excluded unless the  employee is required or permitted to work during that time, and provided  further, that time spent on the premises of the employer for the convenience  of the employee shall be excluded. 34 Pa. Code § 231.1(b) 

In its 2021 Heimbach decision, 255 A.3d 191 (Pa. 2021) interpreting this regulation, the  Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, contrary to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), that (1) under  Pennsylvania law, time spent by employees in mandatory security screenings is compensable and  (2) Pennsylvania law does not recognize the de minimis doctrine, so even nominal amounts of  compensable time must be paid.  

Judge Murphy noted that Pennsylvania law does not follow federal law. Under the 1947 Portal-to Portal Act, which amended the FLSA, employers cannot be liable for time spent “walking . . . to  and from the actual place of performance of the principal activities which such employee is  employed to perform.” 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(1). By contrast, the PMWA, passed twenty-one years  after the Portal-to-Portal Act, contains no such exclusion for “walking time.”  

Heimbach’s Continuing Impact  

The Court rejected Target’s attempt to avoid Heimbach’s holding, as well as the employer’s  challenge to the “hours worked” regulation as unconstitutionally vague because it does not define  what constitutes the employer’s “premises.” “Target has not shown that ‘on the premises of the  employer’ is vague as applied to intra-facility walking time,” the Court held.  

Judge Murphy concluded “[a]s a matter of law, walking time is compensable under the PMWA.”  Citing Heimbach again, the Court also ruled that Target cannot assert a de minimis defense to  PMWA claims. The Court granted summary judgment to Mr. Davis on these bases.  

Of course, the decision is subject to further review on appeal and is not binding on other district  courts, and other district courts or the Third Circuit Court of Appeals may see things differently.  

Takeaways  

Employers should consider proactive measures to mitigate risk in this area, including:  

∙ Carefully reviewing timekeeping and attendance policies.  

∙ Reviewing time clock placement, especially at large facilities.  

∙ For larger facilities, considering time studies to determine the extent and risks presented  by walking time.  

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to discuss these recent rulings and to assist employers in  taking appropriate responsive steps.