Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 23-217Jan 15, 2025Labor and EmploymentVacated and remanded

The question

Whether an employer must prove that an employee is exempt from the FLSA's minimum-wage and overtime-pay requirements by a preponderance of the evidence or by the more demanding clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

What the Court decided

The Court held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to prove that an employee is exempt from the FLSA's minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions, rejecting the higher clear-and-convincing-evidence standard the District Court had used. The preponderance standard is the default in American civil litigation, and courts depart from it only when a statute requires a heightened standard, the Constitution mandates one, or the Government takes coercive action against an individual, none of which is present here. The Court vacated and remanded, leaving to the Fourth Circuit whether the sales representatives qualify as outside salesmen under the preponderance standard.

How the justices split

Unanimous
In favor 9
Kavanaugh
Roberts
Sotomayor
Kagan
Barrett
Jackson
Alito
Gorsuch
Thomas

The Court's opinion

Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson

The opinion held that the default preponderance-of-the-evidence standard governs an employer's attempt to prove an FLSA exemption. It reasoned that the preponderance standard was the default in American civil litigation when the FLSA was enacted in 1938 and remains so, and that courts deviate only when a statute requires a heightened standard, the Constitution mandates one, or the Government takes coercive action against an individual. The FLSA is silent on the standard of proof, no constitutional right or coercive Government action is implicated, and FLSA cases resemble Title VII employment-discrimination cases, which use the preponderance standard. It rejected the employees' policy arguments that the FLSA's public-interest purpose and the nonwaivability of FLSA rights require a heightened standard, and left for the Court of Appeals on remand whether the employees qualify as outside salesmen under the preponderance standard.

Concurring

Gorsuch, joined by Thomas

Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Thomas. The syllabus notes the concurrence but does not describe its reasoning.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to prove that an employee is exempt from the FLSA's minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The FLSA places the burden on the employer to show that an exemption applies and does not specify a standard of proof for exemptions.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The Court departs from the default preponderance standard in three circumstances: when a statute requires a heightened standard, when the Constitution mandates one, and in rare situations involving coercive Government action.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Whether the employees qualify as outside salesmen under a preponderance standard was left for the Court of Appeals on remand.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, and Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Thomas.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov