Supreme Court Overtime Case Signals A Pro-Employer Shift

16 April 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

What keeps employers up at night? The prospect of collective action overtime lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is right at the top of the list of human resources nightmares.

While overtime and other wage and hour lawsuits aren’t going away any time soon, on April 2, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that may spell relief for some employers.

The case at issue, Encino Motor Cars, LLC v. Navarro, involved a group of current and former service advisors working at a car dealership. The service advisors sued the dealership, arguing that it should have paid them overtime wages for any hours over 40 they worked in a workweek.  The dealership denied the service advisors’ claim, pointing to language in the FLSA which provides an exemption to the overtime requirements for any “salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements.”  The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that, in fact, the dealership’s sales advisors were salesmen primarily engaged in servicing automobiles.  This meant, of course, that the employer was correct in classifying them as exempt from entitlement to overtime pay.

Although this may not sound like much of a stretch, anyone who has dealt with an overtime lawsuit knows that whether or not your employees are going to be deemed to satisfy exemption criteria in a given case is often a wild card.  This is because courts have generally “narrowly construed” exemptions, or applied them sparingly.  By narrowly construing the meaning of the words used to describe each exemption, courts have often decided that exemptions do not apply in circumstances that, on their face, appear to fit well within the exemption.  The approach of narrowly construing exemptions has caused significant uncertainty for employers who want to follow the law, but do not know whether a court would agree that a particular exemption applies to a certain job position.

The most significant aspect of the Encino Motor Cars case is how the Court reached its ruling.  The Court veered from the longstanding approach of narrowly construing an exemption from overtime pay and instead noted that there is “no reason not to give [the exemptions] a fair reading.”

Employers should note, however, that this was not a unanimous opinion, with only five of the nine justices on the Court agreeing with this ruling.  Although a changing of the tide appears to be on the horizon, employers should remain cautious and continue to weigh the risks and benefits of paying overtime to employees who may be exempt.  It is not yet clear what a “fair reading” analysis will entail.  And, even with a “fair reading,” there are still plenty of opportunities for a court to determine that a company has misclassified its employees.  Further, applicable state wage and hour laws may continue to be enforced more narrowly.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services