Employers Subject to More Lenient Standard for FLSA Exemptions from Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Provisions
ABSTRACT: U.S. Supreme Court unanimously holds the preponderance of the evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the FLSA.
The Fair Labor Standard Act guarantees a federal minimum wage for covered workers and requires overtime pay for those working in excess of forty hours a week. However, not all employees are covered by the FLSA, as Congress provided exemptions for many different types of employees, from baseball players to computer programmers to firefighters and so on. In E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. v. Carrera et al., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a 4th Circuit decision requiring an employer to prove its case by “clear and convincing” evidence, and found that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the FLSA.
Several E.M.D. sales representatives sued the company in the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland alleging that E.M.D. violated the FLSA when it failed to pay them overtime wages. E.M.D. agreed these employees worked more than forty hours per week without receiving overtime pay but instead, E.M.D. argued that the employees were categorized as ‘exempt’ because they fell within the FLSA’s outside-salesman exemption.
The District Court found that E.M.D. failed to prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that the employees qualified as outside salesmen. On appeal, E.M.D. argued the District Court should have applied the less stringent preponderance of the evidence standard. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the District Court judgment, making it the only Circuit holding that the clear and convincing standard applies to the applicability of the FLSA exemptions.
There are three main circumstances when a court must deviate from the preponderance standard in civil litigation: (1) when a statute establishes a heightened standard; (2) when the Constitution requires a heightened standard; and (3) rare situations involving coercive Government action. The Supreme Court concluded that the FLSA does not specify a standard of proof for employee exemptions, no constitutional rights were implicated, and this did not involve unusual coercive action against an individual. The Court noted, “[s]tatutory silence is generally inconsistent with the view that Congress intended to require a special, heightened standard of proof.”
The Court compared FLSA actions to Title VII cases where the Court has consistently held that a preponderance standard applies, stating “[i]f clear and convincing evidence is not required in Title VII cases, it is hard to see why it would be required in Fair Labor Standards Act cases.”
Further, the Supreme Court was unpersuaded by the employees’ “policy-laden arguments,” explaining that even “important public interests remain subject to the preponderance standard." The Court was quick to avoid choosing a side on a policy debate but rather apply the longstanding default rule for the standard of proof, allowing both parties in a civil case to “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.”
This holding provides clear guidance, which puts to rest the misapplication by some courts of the more onerous “clear and convincing evidence” standard for FLSA exemption.related services

Requirements of the New Illinois Pay Transparency Amendment ...

About Employment & Labor Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Employment & Labor Law Blog examines topics and developments of interest to employers, Human Resources professionals, and others with an interest in recent legal developments concerning the workplace. This blog is focused on the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, including Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and on major developments under federal law, and at the EEOC and NLRB. Learn more about the editor, David M. Eisenberg, and our Employment & Labor practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Employment & Labor Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Employment & Labor Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Employment & Labor Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.