Fair Labor Standards Act rulemaking Detailed Explanation with Case Law
📘 I. Introduction to the FLSA
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) is a cornerstone of U.S. labor law. It governs:
Minimum wage
Overtime pay
Child labor restrictions
Record-keeping requirements
🛠️ FLSA Rulemaking:
The Department of Labor (DOL), particularly the Wage and Hour Division, is tasked with:
Issuing regulations and interpretive rules,
Creating exemption criteria (e.g., executive, administrative, professional roles),
Updating salary thresholds,
Enforcing compliance via investigations and penalties.
🧾 II. Legal Issues in FLSA Rulemaking
| Legal Area | Description |
|---|---|
| Delegated Authority | DOL must act within powers delegated by Congress. |
| Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking | Changes to substantive rules must follow APA procedures. |
| Chevron Deference | Courts often defer to reasonable agency interpretations. |
| Retroactivity | New rules cannot be unfairly applied to past conduct. |
| Economic Impact | Courts may assess whether a rule imposes undue burdens. |
📚 III. Key FLSA Rulemaking Cases
1. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016)
📌 Facts:
DOL issued a rule in 2011 that reversed its prior interpretation, stating that service advisors at car dealerships were not exempt from overtime pay. The employer followed the prior rule and didn’t pay overtime.
🧑⚖️ Issue:
Was the 2011 DOL rule entitled to deference?
🏛️ Ruling:
The Supreme Court refused to give deference to the 2011 rule because DOL offered no reasoned explanation for changing its position.
Agency must provide clear rationale when reversing existing interpretations.
🔍 Significance:
Strengthened requirement for reasoned rulemaking under Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Limited automatic Chevron deference for sudden regulatory reversals.
2. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
📌 Facts:
DOL changed its interpretation of whether mortgage loan officers are exempt under the "administrative" exemption—without going through notice-and-comment.
🧑⚖️ Issue:
Must the agency use notice-and-comment rulemaking to change its interpretive rules?
🏛️ Ruling:
The Court held that interpretive rules can be changed without notice-and-comment, overturning a D.C. Circuit precedent (Paralyzed Veterans doctrine).
But courts can still review the substance for consistency and rationality.
🔍 Significance:
DOL can revise interpretations of FLSA exemptions more freely, but such rules still require justification and may be challenged for being arbitrary.
3. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012)
📌 Facts:
The issue was whether pharmaceutical sales representatives qualified as "outside salesmen" under the FLSA exemption and were thus not entitled to overtime.
🧑⚖️ Issue:
Was DOL’s interpretation (that they were non-exempt) entitled to deference?
🏛️ Ruling:
The Court declined to give deference because the DOL’s position was only in amicus briefs and was not previously announced in formal rulemaking.
Ruled that the employees were exempt "outside salesmen".
🔍 Significance:
Reinforced that DOL’s interpretive changes must go through proper rulemaking or formal policy documents to be binding.
Also clarified that regulated entities need fair notice of how the law will be interpreted.
4. Home Care Association of America v. Weil, 799 F.3d 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
📌 Facts:
The DOL issued a new rule that narrowed the companionship services exemption, making more home care workers eligible for minimum wage and overtime.
🧑⚖️ Issue:
Did DOL exceed its authority under the FLSA?
🏛️ Ruling:
Court upheld the rule, finding it within the DOL’s delegated authority.
Said the DOL had the power to define terms like “companionship services”.
🔍 Significance:
Confirmed that courts will uphold major changes in FLSA coverage when done through proper rulemaking procedures.
Expanded coverage for vulnerable workers.
5. Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor, 275 F. Supp. 3d 795 (E.D. Tex. 2017)
📌 Facts:
The DOL under the Obama administration updated the salary threshold for "white-collar" exemptions, more than doubling it from ~$23,000 to ~$47,000 annually.
🧑⚖️ Issue:
Was the new salary threshold rule valid under the FLSA?
🏛️ Ruling:
Court struck down the rule, stating that DOL gave excessive weight to salary rather than the duties test, which determines exempt status.
Said the threshold effectively replaced the duties test, contrary to the statute.
🔍 Significance:
Court imposed limits on how far salary thresholds can be used in defining exemptions.
Signals that rulemaking must respect the text and structure of the statute.
6. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945)
📌 Facts:
Employer paid back wages to an employee who had waived his right to additional damages under FLSA.
🧑⚖️ Issue:
Can employees waive their rights under the FLSA?
🏛️ Ruling:
Supreme Court ruled that FLSA rights are not waivable, even by private agreement.
Ensures uniform enforcement of wage laws and protects workers from coercive waivers.
🔍 Significance:
Rulemakings or enforcement policies must respect the non-waivable nature of FLSA rights.
Still shapes how DOL structures settlements and compliance programs.
📊 IV. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Ruling | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Encino Motorcars (2016) | Abrupt rule change on exemption | Rule rejected for lack of explanation | Stronger procedural demands |
| Perez v. MBA (2015) | Changing interpretive rules | Notice-and-comment not required | Agencies have flexibility |
| Christopher v. GSK (2012) | Deference to agency briefs | No deference without formal rule | Fair notice requirement |
| Home Care v. Weil (2015) | Narrowing exemptions | Rule upheld | Broader worker protections |
| Nevada v. DOL (2017) | Salary threshold rule | Rule invalidated | Must follow statutory limits |
| Brooklyn Savings Bank (1945) | Waiver of rights | Waiver invalid | Rights are non-negotiable |
🔍 V. Key Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Reasoned Rulemaking | Agencies must justify new or reversed positions with facts and logic. |
| Limits to Deference | Courts do not blindly follow agency interpretations, especially informal ones. |
| Statutory Fidelity | Rulemakings must stay within the bounds of what Congress authorized. |
| Worker Protection Priority | FLSA is remedial and interpreted broadly in favor of employees. |
| Rulemaking Procedure Matters | APA procedures must be respected—especially for major economic rules. |
🏁 VI. Conclusion
FLSA rulemaking is dynamic and often politically contested. Courts play a vital role in:
Balancing agency discretion with statutory limits,
Ensuring that workers are protected from exploitation,
Preventing overreach by administrative bodies,
And maintaining procedural integrity in the regulatory process.
The six cases above highlight how the judiciary acts as a constitutional check on labor regulation, especially when rule changes affect millions of workers and employers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments