A team of Fox Rothschild Labor & Employment and Appellate practice attorneys contributed an Amicus brief to a 9-0 Supreme Court win that establishes that employers need only prove an exception to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by a preponderance of the evidence.
Colin Dougherty, Matt Leerberg, Morgan McCall Reece and Erika Page authored the brief pro bono on behalf of the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), which is a client of Patrick Kane.
The case, E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, involved allegations by three workers that their employer, E.M.D. Sales violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime when they worked more than 40 hours a week. E.M.D. argued that the employees were exempt from overtime under the FLSA’s “outside salesperson” exception. The District Court ruled in favor of the employees, determining that E.M.D. failed to prove the exception by “clear and convincing evidence.” The company appealed to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court applied the wrong evidentiary standard, and should have required only a “preponderance of the evidence.” The 4th Circuit upheld the lower court ruling, and E.M.D. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court voted 9-0 to reverse the 4th Circuit, ruling that the FLSA does not specify an evidentiary standard and that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is the default standard of evidence in civil litigation, should apply when employers seek to prove an employee is exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime rules.
In their brief on behalf of the IMLA, our attorneys highlighted E.M.D.’s argument “that there is no support in the text, purpose, and history of the FLSA” to find that employers bear a heightened burden of persuasion to prove one of the FLSA’s numerous exemptions exist (as a defense to FLSA claims).
If the Court had adopted the burden of proof urged by the plaintiffs, our team argued, the potential financial consequences would have been “serious and far-reaching for local governments and their citizens” in cases where plaintiffs/employees sued their municipal employers. For example, “local governmental entities across the country [would have born] a heavy burden that could result in cuts to services and personnel disruptions for local citizens” (i.e., lawsuits and judgments could eat up significant portions of their budgets, etc.).
The IMLA, a nonprofit that advocates for local governments in matters of municipal law, was extremely pleased with the team’s contributions, commenting on its “great work” and “advocacy for local governments.”
Original source can be found here.