Off the Clock, On the Hook? Lidl Faces Wage Claims Over Employee Waiting Time

Key Takeaways

• The Second Circuit held that employer-required waiting time may be compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), even when employees have not clocked in or performed their regular duties.
• The court rejected the argument that 15 minutes of unpaid waiting time per week was necessarily too insignificant to support a wage claim.
• Employers should review pre-shift reporting requirements, workplace access procedures and timekeeping policies to ensure employees are compensated for all legally compensable time.

Time is money, even when employees are stuck waiting for the clock to start. On October 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived a proposed wage-and-hour class action against grocery chain Lidl US, LLC, holding that employees required to report to work before their scheduled shifts may be entitled to compensation for time spent waiting to begin work.

The divided decision in Santos v. Lidl US, LLC serves as a reminder that employers cannot avoid wage obligations simply because employees have not yet clocked in.

The Case: Fifteen Minutes That Could Cost Lidl

Sandra Santos, a former Lidl grocery store employee, alleged that Lidl required employees working opening shifts to arrive 15 minutes before their scheduled start times. The problem, though, was that managers responsible for unlocking the stores regularly arrived at the scheduled start time, leaving employees waiting outside without access to the time clocks.

According to Santos, this occurred approximately once per week, resulting in unpaid time that sometimes triggered overtime obligations. She brought claims under the FLSA and New York labor law, alleging that Lidl unlawfully shaved compensable time from employees’ workweeks.

Lidl argued that the waiting period was not compensable under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act, which generally excludes certain activities that are preliminary or postliminary to an employee’s principal work duties.

The district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The Second Circuit, however, saw things differently.

The Second Circuit’s Reasoning: Waiting on the Employer’s Time

In a 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit held that Santos plausibly alleged compensable waiting time because she was “engaged to wait,” rather than merely waiting to be engaged.

The distinction matters. Under longstanding FLSA principles, waiting time may be compensable when an employer requires employees to report at a designated time, ready to work, but circumstances beyond their control prevent them from beginning their duties.

Here, Santos allegedly complied with Lidl’s early reporting requirement but could not begin working because managers had not arrived to unlock the store. The court concluded that such employer-imposed waiting time could constitute compensable work.

The majority also rejected Lidl’s attempt to dismiss the claim as de minimis, finding that 15 minutes of unpaid waiting time per week could not be deemed insignificant as a matter of law at this stage of the litigation.

Judge Richard Sullivan dissented, reasoning that waiting outside the store was not integral and indispensable to employees’ principal duties.

Importantly, the ruling does not establish that Lidl violated wage laws. Rather, it only allows Santos’ claims to proceed. The decision is binding on federal courts within the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont, and may influence how courts in other jurisdictions evaluate similar unpaid waiting-time claims.

Takeaways for Employers

The decision underscores how even minor scheduling and timekeeping practices can create significant wage-and-hour exposure, particularly when repeated across large groups of employees.

Employers may consider reviewing pre-shift reporting requirements, workplace access procedures and timekeeping practices to identify potential gaps in compensable time. This includes ensuring employees can accurately record time spent waiting due to employer-imposed delays, including when managers are late or time clocks are inaccessible. Policies should also distinguish between employees who voluntarily arrive early and those required to be present and ready to work before their scheduled shift time.

For questions about how this decision affects your business, contact your Polsinelli attorney.