E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, 604 U.S. ___ (2025)
EMD Sales, Inc. distributes food products in the Washington, D.C. area and employs sales representatives who manage inventory and take orders at grocery stores. Several sales representatives sued EMD, alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them overtime. EMD argued that the sales representatives were outside salesmen and therefore exempt from the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland held a bench trial and found EMD liable for overtime pay because EMD did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that its sales representatives were outside salesmen. The court ordered EMD to pay overtime wages and liquidated damages. EMD appealed, arguing that the District Court should have used the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard instead of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, adhering to Circuit precedent that required employers to prove FLSA exemptions by clear and convincing evidence.
The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the FLSA. The Court reasoned that the FLSA does not specify a standard of proof for exemptions, and in the absence of such specification, the default preponderance standard should apply. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard governs when an employer attempts to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
E.M.D. SALES, INC., et al. v. CARRERA et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit
No. 23–217. Argued November 5, 2024—Decided January 15, 2025
In 1938, Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), guaranteeing a federal minimum wage for covered workers, 29 U. S. C. §206(a)(1), and requiring overtime pay for those working more than 40 hours per week, §207(a)(1). Congress exempted many types of employees from the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement, including outside salesmen who primarily work away from their employer’s place of business. §213(a)(1). The law places the burden on the employer to show that an exemption applies.
Petitioner EMD distributes food products in the Washington, D. C., area and employs sales representatives who manage inventory and take orders at grocery stores. Several sales representatives sued EMD alleging that the company violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime. EMD argued that the sales representatives were outside salesmen and therefore exempt from the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement. After a bench trial, the District Court found EMD liable for overtime because EMD did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that its sales representatives were outside salesmen. On appeal, EMD argued that the District Court should have used the less stringent preponderance-of-the-evidence standard instead of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. Applying Circuit precedent, the Fourth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
Held: The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the FLSA. Pp. 4–8.
(a) When Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard was the default in American civil litigation, and it remains so today. In civil litigation, the Court has deviated from this default standard in three main circumstances. First, if a statute requires a heightened standard of proof, courts must apply it. See, e.g., §§218c(b)(1), 464(c). Second, the Constitution can mandate a heightened standard of proof. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254; Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418. Third, in certain rare situations involving coercive Government action, such as taking away a person’s citizenship, a heightened standard may apply. See, e.g., Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129. But in most civil cases, including employment-discrimination cases under Title VII, the Court has consistently applied the preponderance standard. See, e.g., Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228. Pp. 4–6.
(b) The FLSA does not specify a standard of proof for exemptions, and when a civil statute is silent, courts typically apply the preponderance standard. See, e.g., Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279. This case does not involve constitutional rights that would require a heightened standard, nor does it involve the Government taking unusual or coercive action against an individual. FLSA cases are similar to Title VII employment-discrimination cases, where the Court has applied the preponderance standard. P. 6.
(c) The employees’ policy-laden arguments for a heightened standard are unconvincing. Their argument that the FLSA protects the public interest in a fair economy does not necessitate a heightened standard. Other workplace protections, like those under Title VII, also serve important public interests but are subject to the preponderance standard. The employees argue that rights under the FLSA are nonwaivable and therefore different from other rights subject to the preponderance standard. But waivability of a right does not determine the standard of proof. Pp. 7–8.
Whether the employees would fail to qualify as outside salesmen even under a preponderance standard is left for the Court of Appeals on remand. P. 8.
75 F. 4th 345, reversed and remanded.
Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. |
Argued. For petitioners: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Aimee W. Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Lauren E. Bateman, Washington, D. C. |
Reply of petitioners E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. submitted. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
CIRCULATED |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted. |
Brief of Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al. submitted. |
Brief of respondents Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of United States submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
Amicus brief of The Local Government Legal Center, The National Association of Counties, The National League of Cities and The International Municipal Lawyers Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, Inc., National Retail Federation, and Restaurant Law Center submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Assoc. of Wholesaler-Distributors and International Foodservice Distributors Assoc. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of The Local Government Legal Center, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of National Assoc. of Wholesaler-Distributors, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of New England Legal Foundation submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. |
Brief of petitioners E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. filed. |
Brief of E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. submitted. |
Brief of petitioners E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. filed. |
Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The record is electronic and is available on PACER. |
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. |
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 13, 2024. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 24, 2024. |
Motion of E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. for an extension of time submitted. |
Motion of E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. to dispense with joint appendix submitted. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. |
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024. |
Supplemental brief of petitioners E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Supplemental brief of respondents Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/1/2023. |
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner. |
Reply of petitioners E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondents Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al. in opposition filed. |
Response Requested. (Due November 13, 2023) |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023. |
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed) |
Waiver of right of respondent Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al. to respond filed. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 10, 2023) |