Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300, consolidating them for argument. The three cases present the question whether class action
supreme court
SCOTUS to Resolve Circuit Split Regarding Whether “Service Advisors” Are Exempt From Overtime and Consider Deference Owed to USDOL
On Friday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to resolve the current split among the Circuit Courts regarding whether “service advisors” are exempt from overtime under the 213(b)(10) exemption, an exemption applicable to any “salesman, partsman, or mechanic” who is primarily engaged in “selling or servicing automobiles.” Both the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have held…
Uber Litigation Continues To Serve As Legal Lightning Rod for “On Demand” Economy
Cases challenging the independent contractor status of certain service providers under the wage-and-hour laws are likely to continue in the near future due to the difficulties in applying the law to complex factual patterns. The Department of Labor recently provided additional guidance for determining contractor status in the form of an Administrator’s Interpretation (and the…
Supreme Court Upholds DOL’s 2010 Interpretive Guidance Reversing Prior Position Regarding FLSA Classification of Loan Officers
Reversing the D.C. Circuit’s 2013 opinion, the Supreme Court today held that the U.S. Department of Labor did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when, in 2010, it issued its Administrator’s Interpretation stating that mortgage loan officers generally do not qualify for the administrative exemption without first affording the public the opportunity for…
Origins of Wage-and-Hour Jurisprudence: Portland Terminal
Many current FLSA compensation issues which are the subject of widespread litigation – such as the current wave of intern cases – have their legal underpinnings in Supreme Court authority decided during the 1940s in the years following the enactment of the FLSA (1938) and the Portal-to-Portal Act (1947). For example, courts seeking to interpret…
Supreme Court: Security Screening Time Not Compensable Under FLSA
Unanimously reversing the Ninth Circuit, today the U.S. Supreme Court held that time spent by warehouse workers undergoing security screenings was non-compensable because it did not constitute a “principal activity,” nor was it “integral and indispensable” to the workers’ other principal activities. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, No. 13–433 (Dec. 9, 2014).
The…
Supreme Court Declines Skycaps’ Appeal of Tip Claim Preemption Ruling
Presumably ending the long-running litigation regarding whether certain Massachusetts skycaps’ common law claims challenging the imposition of a $2 curbside baggage handling fee that allegedly caused a reduction in tips are preempted, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of the First Circuit’s 2013 decision finding those claims preempted by the Airline…
Supreme Court Declines Catsimatidis’ Invitation To Review FLSA Liability
Though the high court recently has accepted other petitions for certiorari on FLSA issues, today the Court declined Gristede’s owner and former NYC mayoral candidate John Catsimatidis’ request that the Court take up his case and review the imposition of individual liability imposed by the Second Circuit. Catsimatidis v. Irizarry, 2014 U.S.…
Supreme Court Accepts FLSA Certiorari Petition Regarding Pay for “Security Screening”
The Supreme Court agreed today to hear a case involving application of the Portal-to-Portal Act to employees who claim they should be compensated for time spent undergoing security screenings used to prevent employee theft. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, Case No. 13-433. The employees allege they were required to undergo security screenings to…
Supreme Court Affirms Seventh Circuit: Donning of Protective Gear “Changing Clothes” Within the Meaning of FLSA Provision
Building on its prior rulings in so-called “donning and doffing” cases, the Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s 2012 decision holding that the donning of certain protective gear qualifies as “changing clothes” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(o), and thus is susceptible to exclusion from the hours worked calculation under the terms…