{"id":1955,"date":"2025-01-20T17:55:50","date_gmt":"2025-01-20T21:55:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1955"},"modified":"2025-01-20T17:55:51","modified_gmt":"2025-01-20T21:55:51","slug":"u-s-supreme-court-unanimously-holds-that-flsa-exemptions-are-subject-to-the-same-standard-of-proof-as-almost-all-other-civil-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/01\/20\/u-s-supreme-court-unanimously-holds-that-flsa-exemptions-are-subject-to-the-same-standard-of-proof-as-almost-all-other-civil-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That FLSA Exemptions Are Subject To The Same Standard Of Proof As Almost All Other Civil Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Gregory Tsonis, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 On January 15, 2025, in Carrera v. EMD Sales, Inc., No. 23-217, 2025 WL 96207 (S. Ct. Jan. 15, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed<\/a> the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that the burden of proof required to prove the applicability of exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the \u201cFLSA\u201d) is not the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard applied in the Fourth Circuit.\u00a0 In so doing, the Supreme Court harmonized the law across the country and confirmed that such exemptions need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

E.M.D Sales, Inc. (\u201cEMD\u201d) is a company that distributes food products in the Washington D.C. area.  It employs sales representatives who work with partner grocery stores to help manage EMD products.  The sales representatives \u201cspend most of their time outside of EMD’s main office servicing stores on their routes,\u201d however, there was disagreement as to \u201cwhether [the] sales representatives\u2019 primary duty is to make sales of EMD products.\u201d  Carrera v. EMD Sales, Inc.<\/em>, No. 17-CV-3066, 2021 WL 1060258, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, several of these sales representatives sued EMD in federal court in Maryland, arguing that they were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.  In response, EMD argued that the sales representatives were exempt from the FLSA\u2019s requirements pursuant to the \u201coutside salesman\u201d exemption.  29 U.S.C. \u00a7 213(a)(1). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following a bench trial on the issue, the district court held that the outside salesman exemption did not apply.  In so doing, the district court relied on Fourth Circuit precedent holding that the employer has the burden of proving the applicability of any FLSA exemption by \u201cclear and convincing evidence.\u201d  Carrera<\/em>, 2021 WL 1060258, at *5.  <\/em>In federal courts outside of the Fourth Circuit, an employer is only required to prove these exemptions under a lower standard of proof called the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, which is the typical standard in civil cases.  Id<\/em>.  The district court held that the employer failed to meet the heightened burden of proof regarding the applicability of the exemption, and thus held that the EMD sales representatives were entitled to overtime pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On appeal, EMD argued that the heightened \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard, which had long been the applicable standard for federal courts within the Fourth Circuit, should be overturned so it conformed with the standard applied across the rest of the country.  The Fourth Circuit declined to do so and explained that \u201cthe district court properly applied the law of this circuit in requiring the defendants to prove their entitlement to the outside sales exemption by clear and convincing evidence.\u201d  Carrera v. EMD Sales, Inc.<\/em>, 75 F.4th 345, 353 (4th Cir. 2023).  EMD, thereafter, sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari<\/em> to resolve the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a unanimous 9-0 opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court explained that the \u201cFourth Circuit stands alone in requiring employers to prove the applicability of Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions by clear and convincing evidence.  Every other Court of Appeals to address the issue has held that the preponderance standard applies.\u201d  Carrera, <\/em>2025 WL 96207, at *3.  In noting that the \u201cpreponderance of the evidence\u201d standard is \u201cthe established default standard of proof in American civil litigation,\u201d the Supreme Court explained that the default standard can only be abrogated by statute, constitutional requirement, or other uncommon situations where unusual coercive relief is sought (e.g<\/em>., revocation of citizenship, etc.). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In analyzing whether any such circumstances existed, the Supreme Court first observed that the FLSA is silent on the applicable burden of proof, noting there is no language that suggests that Congress intended a heightened burden to apply.  Second, because the FLSA does not implicate constitutional rights, the U.S. Constitution did not compel a different result.  Third, because FLSA lawsuits are akin to other employment statutes that entitle certain employees to monetary relief, they are not unusually coercive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turning next to policy arguments in favor of a heightened standard, the Supreme Court noted that other important statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, apply a preponderance standard while seeking to achieve laudable policy goals, such as ending discrimination in the workplace.  Id. <\/em>at *4-5.  Finding nothing particularly distinct about the FLSA, the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the policy arguments advanced by the sales representatives, explaining that \u201crather than choose sides in a policy debate, this Court must apply the statute as written and as informed by the longstanding default rule regarding the standard of proof.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Fourth Circuit and held that an employer must prove the applicability of FLSA exemptions only by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Supreme Court also remanded the case back to the district court for a determination as to whether EMD met the lower evidentiary burden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Carrera<\/em> is a welcome reprieve for employers sued in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina federal courts.  These employers will no longer have to satisfy a heightened burden of proof that they would otherwise not have to satisfy if sued for the same claims in any other state.  Accordingly, employers based in those states can rest a little easier knowing that the standard for proving FLSA exemptions if sued will be the default standard applied in other jurisdictions, and not the heightened \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard that has long applied.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Gregory Tsonis, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On January 15, 2025, in Carrera v. EMD Sales, Inc., No. 23-217, 2025 WL 96207 (S. Ct. Jan. 15, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that the burden of proof … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That FLSA Exemptions Are Subject To The Same Standard Of Proof As Almost All Other Civil Cases”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,42],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,8,127],"class_list":["post-1955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","category-wage-hour-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":8,"user_id":577,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gtsonis","display_name":"Gregory Tsonis","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/tsonisgreg-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Tsonis","first_name":"Gregory","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":"Read Gregory's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Garippo","first_name":"Ryan","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/ryangarippo.html","description":"Read Ryan's Bio<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1955","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1955"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1955\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1955"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}