The Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a potentially high-stakes dispute over the breadth of the state’s minimum wage law and whether companies have to pay employees for pre- and post-shift work-related activities.

The case before the state’s high court involved two ex-Amazon employees suing the company for alleged unpaid wages.

During the pandemic, Amazon required employees to show up early for their shifts to undergo COVID-19 “screenings,” where they were checked for symptoms of the highly contagious illness.

Plaintiffs Lisa Johnson and Gale Miller Anderson, who were employed at an Amazon warehouse in Chicago during that time, believe Amazon should compensate them for the extra time they spent at the facility prior to their shift.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the Illinois Department of Labor filed paperwork with the court in support of the co-plaintiffs.

The case centers around if, and how, Illinois should adhere to a federal law that spares employers from paying employees for activities necessary for their job done before and after their shift, such as commuting to and from work.

The former Amazon workers argue that since Illinois’ minimum wage law doesn’t cite the federal law, state law prevails.

“If you require your employees to do something, then you have to pay your employees to do that thing,” said John Frawley, the attorney representing the the one-time Amazon workers.

Amazon argued that the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic should bar employers from being required to pay for the additional work required by the screenings. They also argued that completing the screenings was not required for the plaintiffs employee’s on-shift duties, which included moving, stacking and loading packages.

“COVID was, fortunately, a temporary circumstance, and it’s just not integral or indispensable to the stacking of boxes,” said Gary Feinerman, the attorney representing the defense.

Justice Mary K. O’Brien questioned Amazon’s claim that a positive COVID-19 screening would be unnecessary for employees to do their job, and mentioned safety concerns around employees continuing to work had they failed the screening.

Feinerman also asked that the court consider the monetary impacts of ruling in favor of the plaintiff. In its brief, Amazon argues that a ruling against them could lead to employers having to pay for pre- and post-shift activities “ranging from walking from their cars, to waiting for an elevator, to going through routine security checks at government buildings.”

“Imposing that kind of retrospective, unplanned liability would be devastating, especially for small businesses, and those are precisely the consequences,” Feinerman said.

The Illinois Supreme Court is composed of a 5-2 Democratic majority.