​Issue: Employment
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Term: October 2015
Oral Argument: April 20, 2016
Vote: 6-2
Opinion: Justice Kennedy
Lower Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Question Presented:
Whether "service advisors" at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C.  § 213(b)(10)(A) from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirements.

RLC's Position:
The RLC joined other business associations in submitting a merits brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case where the Ninth Circuit narrowly construed one of the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA's) over-time pay exemptions. The brief asks the Court to take the opportunity to direct the lower courts to construe the FLSA exemptions neither broadly nor narrowly, but correctly by using the ordinary tools of statutory construction. Although this issue differs from the question presented, it is squarely before the Court and addressing the proper standard to interpret the exemption is antecedent to the question presented. 

Case Outcome:
In a 6-2 decision, the Court​ held that the Department of Labor is not entitled to Chevron​ ​deference in its interpretation of the FLSA "salesman" exemption due to the Department's lack of explanation for its rule change.  The case was vacated and remanded. 

Procedural History and Case Documents: