Second Circuit Revives Lidl Wage Claims Over Employee Waiting Time
The Second Circuit revived wage claims that Lidl employees weren't paid for pre-shift waiting time.
Why it matters: These claims emphasize the importance of labor law compliance regarding compensable waiting time under the FLSA. Labor and employment legal advisors should assess employer risks and review relevant workplace policies to avoid similar disputes.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on October 13, 2026, that Lidl must compensate employees for pre-shift waiting time.
- Former employee Sandra Santos alleged Lidl required reporting 15 minutes early, often causing unpaid waiting outside due to late managers.
- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The court clarified that waiting time is compensable if employees must be ready at a worksite but cannot work due to employer-controlled delays.
On October 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court decision, ruling that Lidl US, LLC must compensate employees for waiting time before their scheduled shifts begin. This ruling arose from claims by Sandra Santos, who worked as a clerk and stocker at Lidl between July and November 2021.
Santos alleged that employees had to report to work 15 minutes early, typically arriving at 4:45 a.m. for 5:00 a.m. shifts. However, because managers often arrived late, employees were forced to wait outside before being allowed to clock in, resulting in unpaid waiting time about once per week. The court emphasized that this waiting time is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when employees must be on-site and ready to work but are prevented from working due to circumstances beyond their control.
The Second Circuit’s opinion clarified that while the Portal-to-Portal Act excludes certain preliminary activities from compensation, waiting time under these specific conditions falls within compensable hours. The court vacated the district court’s prior dismissal of Santos’s claims and remanded the case for further proceedings, underscoring the legal obligations employers have regarding pre-shift time.
Labor law experts Robert J. Hingula and Mona E. Abboud at Polsinelli advise employers to review pre-shift reporting requirements, workplace access procedures, and timekeeping policies to ensure compliance. The decision may have wider implications, prompting other employers to reevaluate how they handle compensable waiting time to reduce risk of similar claims.
This case highlights ongoing scrutiny of wage and hour practices, particularly where employer policies lead to unpaid labor through mandatory early reporting and associated delays.
By the numbers:
- 15 minutes — early arrival required before scheduled Lidl shifts
- October 13, 2026 — date of Second Circuit ruling
- Once per week — frequency of unpaid waiting time reported by employees
Yes, but: Lidl’s response to the ruling remains unknown, and outcomes will depend on subsequent district court proceedings.
What's next: The case has been remanded back to the district court for further consideration and potential trial.