Stay informed and ready to meet both everyday challenges and long-term planning and policy-making goals, with focused news, practical information, and strategic insights on all HR-related developments.
By Kevin McGowan
Jan. 15 — Granting a California car dealership's petition, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review if a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption for employees “primarily engaged” in selling or servicing automobiles means the dealership's “service advisors” aren't entitled to overtime pay.
The justices will review a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that allowed service advisers for Encino Motorcars LLC to pursue overtime pay claims even though the FLSA exempts “any salesman, partsman or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” In reviving the employees' FLSA complaint, the Ninth Circuit said the Labor Department's narrow interpretation of the “ambiguous” exemption was entitled to deference even though its ruling conflicts with two other federal circuits that reject the DOL's interpretation.
The court's decision to grant review continues the justices' renewed interest in FLSA cases, as wage and hour litigation has proliferated in the lower courts. The Supreme Court in its recent FLSA decisions generally hasn't felt compelled to follow the DOL's regulations interpreting the act, particularly when the department has issued shifting interpretations.
In its petition, Encino Motorcars said Supreme Court review is “plainly warranted” to resolve “an acknowledged split of authority” over the FLSA exemption's meaning.
The Ninth Circuit's decision not only created a federal circuit split but “badly misconstrues” the exemption that covers employees “selling or servicing” cars, Encino said.
The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Fifth circuits and federal district courts had uniformly refused to defer to the DOL's “counter-textual interpretation” of the FLSA exemption, which is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A), Encino said.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling “injects uncertainty into what had been a settled area of the law, and will have serious consequences for the nation's 18,000 car dealerships that employ more than 45,000 service advisors,” Encino said.
Allowing the Ninth Circuit's decision to stand would “require a wholesale restructuring” of how car dealerships compensate the service advisers, requiring them to divide their workforce in ways contrary to Congress's intent, Encino said.
No deference is owed to the DOL's 2011 final rule that said service advisers are nonexempt employees because they don't personally service automobiles, Encino said. The department's years of shifting interpretations give the DOL no persuasive authority on this matter, the dealership argued.
Paul D. Clement of Bancroft PLLC in Washington is counsel of record for Encino Motorcars.
In their brief opposing review, the employees said that given the ambiguity in the exemption, the DOL permissibly construed the FLSA not to exempt employees who don't personally service cars.
At Encino, the service advisers meet and greet customers, write up their requests for auto services and forward those work orders to other dealership employees who actually work on the cars, the employees said.
The FLSA's plain text doesn't unambiguously exempt such employees and the DOL reasonably declined to expand the statutory exemption to the service advisers, they said.
The Ninth Circuit properly deferred to the DOL's “delegated authority” to implement the FLSA, the employees said.
No Supreme Court review is warranted because the federal circuits don't disagree that deference is owed to the DOL's “legislative” regulations, such as its 2011 final rule, they said.
The conflicting federal circuit decisions cited by Encino all predate the DOL's 2011 rule, the employees pointed out.
Stephanos Bibas of the University of Pennsylvania Law School Supreme Court Clinic is counsel of record for the employees.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kevin McGowan in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan J. McGolrick at email@example.com
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)