Required to Arrive Early but Unable to Clock In?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Published October 16, 2026 by Francisco E. Mundaca. Current as of October 16, 2026.

NEW YORK, N.Y. – October 16, 2026 – The Mundaca Law Firm is highlighting an important payroll-compliance issue following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s October 13, 2026 decision in Santos v. Lidl US, LLC: employer-required waiting before employees can clock in may constitute compensable work under the circumstances described by the court.

Key Takeaways

• The Second Circuit issued its decision in Santos v. Lidl US, LLC on October 13, 2026.
• The majority concluded that required pre-shift waiting may be compensable when an employee reports at a specified time, ready to work, but cannot begin for reasons beyond the employee’s control.
• The court vacated the dismissal of the FLSA and New York Labor Law time-shaving claims; it did not determine ultimate liability.
• The court declined to decide from the complaint alone that the alleged 15 minutes of unpaid waiting time per week was de minimis.
• The federal-law interpretation is binding in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont and may be persuasive elsewhere.

What Did the Second Circuit Decide in Santos v. Lidl?

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the divided panel revived claims alleging that Lidl required opening-shift employees to report 15 minutes early but sometimes prevented them from accessing the time clocks inside locked stores. The court concluded that the allegations plausibly described employees who were engaged to wait, vacated the dismissal, and returned the case for further proceedings.

The court’s decision rests on the distinction between voluntarily arriving early and being required to report at a specific time ready to work. Employers can review the official Second Circuit opinion in Santos v. Lidl.

Why Should Employers Review Required Pre-Shift Waiting Time?

Francisco Mundaca, Founding Partner of The Mundaca Law Firm, explained:

“Employers often overlook the fact that an employee’s workday may begin well before they are permitted to clock in. I’ve handled a matter involving employees who were required to wait in line for protective equipment before beginning their shifts. Those waits ranged from five to twenty-five minutes, during which employees were unable to clock in. These are not insignificant amounts of time, particularly when they occur repeatedly across an entire workforce”

Mundaca added:

“The critical question is not simply whether an employee has clocked in, but whether the employer is requiring the employee to spend time engaged in activities that may be compensable under federal or state wage-and-hour laws. Employers cannot assume that time becomes noncompensable merely because their timekeeping systems exclude it. Even seemingly minor periods of unpaid time can create substantial financial exposure when multiplied across employees, shifts, and years.”

Employers addressing recurring workforce and payroll questions may also benefit from coordinated general counsel services for growing businesses and a broader review of regulatory compliance and risk management.

What Employer Practices Should Be Reviewed?

• Reporting instructions: Compare scheduled start times with the time employees are actually required to arrive.
• Workplace access: Identify delays involving locked facilities, security procedures, equipment, or unavailable supervisors.
• Time-clock access: Confirm that employees can record required time or promptly report an exception.
• Corrections and overtime: Review how missing time is corrected and whether adjustments affect weekly overtime.
• Supervisor training: Align written timekeeping rules with actual scheduling and opening practices.

What Does the Decision Mean Outside the Second Circuit?

The federal-law interpretation is binding within the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Employers elsewhere should assess required waiting time under the federal and state law applicable to each workforce rather than treating the decision as a nationwide holding on every pre-shift activity.

What Did the Decision Leave Unresolved?

The decision did not establish that Lidl ultimately violated the FLSA or the New York Labor Law. It did not decide damages or collective- or class-certification questions, and it assumed without deciding that the New York claim followed the federal analysis presented by the parties. Whether another waiting period is compensable remains a fact-specific inquiry.

Review Employer Timekeeping Practices

Employers evaluating reporting-time, access, time-clock, or payroll practices may schedule a consultation with The Mundaca Law Firm.

About The Mundaca Law Firm

The Mundaca Law Firm advises businesses, employers, owners, and other clients on employment law, business law, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, and risk management. Its attorneys are licensed in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and Texas.

Media Contact

Giovanni Delfino
Director of Marketing
The Mundaca Law Firm
gdelfino@mundacalaw.com | (202) 738-9353

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Santos v. Lidl mean every pre-shift waiting period must be paid?

No. The Second Circuit addressed allegations that employees were required to report at a specific time, ready to work, but could not begin or clock in for reasons beyond their control. Other waiting periods require a separate, fact-specific analysis.

When may required pre-shift waiting time be compensable?

Required pre-shift waiting time may be compensable when an employer requires an employee to report to the worksite at a particular time, the employee is ready and willing to work, and the employee cannot begin for reasons beyond the employee’s control. Applicable federal and state law should be reviewed for the specific circumstances.

Where is the Santos v. Lidl decision binding?

The Second Circuit’s federal-law interpretation is binding in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Courts and employers elsewhere may consider the decision, but other federal circuits and state laws may apply different or additional rules.

Did the Second Circuit decide that Lidl violated wage-and-hour law?

No. The court vacated the dismissal and returned the claims for further proceedings. It did not determine ultimate liability, damages, or whether a class or collective action should be certified.