On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of employers in wage-related lawsuits, rejecting the need for a higher burden of proof when determining whether workers are exempt from overtime pay and other protections under U.S. wage laws.
The unanimous decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, makes it easier for businesses to defend against lawsuits, including class actions, that claim workers were wrongfully denied overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The ruling stated that employers only need to prove, by “a preponderance of the evidence,” that employees are exempt from FLSA protections, rather than meeting a higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence” as previously required by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving EMD Sales, a grocery distributor.
Kavanaugh explained that the preponderance of the evidence standard is the typical requirement in civil cases, and nothing in the FLSA justifies applying a stricter burden of proof. “Rather than choose sides in a policy debate, this Court must apply the statute as written,” Kavanaugh wrote, emphasizing that the long-established rule regarding the standard of proof should guide the court’s decision.
The case at hand involved a class-action lawsuit filed in 2017 by three EMD Sales workers, who argued that they were improperly classified as outside sales employees and thus denied overtime pay. The company had classified them as exempt under the FLSA, but the workers claimed their primary duties involved stocking shelves, removing expired items, and issuing credits to grocery stores—tasks not related to sales.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge James Bredar ruled in favor of the workers after a bench trial, determining that the company failed to prove that the workers’ primary duties were sales-related. Bredar required EMD Sales to demonstrate the exemption applied by clear and convincing evidence. The 4th Circuit upheld this decision in 2023, citing its precedent on the burden of proof in FLSA cases.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the 4th Circuit’s interpretation was not supported by the FLSA. The Court noted that a heightened burden of proof is only necessary in rare cases, such as those involving constitutional rights or government actions that are unusual or coercive.
The case has now been sent back to the 4th Circuit for further review to determine whether the workers qualify as outside sales employees under the FLSA.
Read more:
King & Spalding Hires Former Biden Administration Officials In Latest Moves
High Court Considers Constitutionality Of Texas’ Age Verification Law For Porn Sites