Key Takeaways

  • The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the argument that employers must meet a higher standard to prove that employees are not entitled to specific overtime protections.
  • In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the nine justices unanimously ruled that employers only need to prove that it is "more likely than not" that an employee is not covered by an overtime exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  • Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in the opinion that the usual standard of proof in civil litigation is the "preponderance of the evidence." He wrote that a stricter standard, such as "clear and convincing," applies only when required by statute or the Constitution, or in certain exceptional and rare cases.

Deep Dive

The ruling was called a "win" for employers by partners at the law firm Fisher Phillips. In a Wednesday article, they stated that this "unanimous decision establishes a uniform national standard under the FLSA and will reduce litigation risk by making it easier for employers to prove that employee classifications are correct."

Kavanaugh further explained in the opinion: "In FLSA cases, the public interest is not entirely on the side of employees. Most legislation reflects a balance between competing interests, and this case is no different. This Court should not take sides in a policy debate but must apply the law based on the statutory text and the long-standing default rules regarding the standard of proof."

Earlier, during oral arguments, the justices' reactions had already hinted that they did not believe a higher standard of proof was necessary in FLSA cases. At that time, an attorney told HR Dive that if the higher evidentiary standard of "clear and convincing" were upheld in the future, more cases related to overtime exemptions would be settled or go to trial at an early stage of litigation.