Supreme Court defaults to lower standard of proof for FLSA exemptions

The “standard of proof” is an important issue in litigation. Usually, it’s the burden a suing employee has to prove all elements of their case. But it’s the employer’s burden to show that an employee is “exempt” from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Is it enough for the employer to prove that point by a “preponderance of the evidence”—meaning that it is more likely than not? Or must the employer meet the higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence”—a standard that commands the assent of every reasonable mind? As a recent U.S. Supreme Court case demonstrates, the standard of proof often determines the outcome.

Background

The FLSA requires employers to pay their employees a minimum wage and overtime compensation. But it also exempts many categories of employees from the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements. The dispute here concerns the standard of proof an employer must satisfy to show an employee is exempt.

EMD distributes international food products in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It employs sales representatives who manage inventory and take orders at grocery stores that stock EMD products. Several EMD sales representatives sued the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. They alleged the company violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime.

EMD did not deny that the employees worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay. But it argued that they fell within the Act’s outside sales exemption.

Higher standard affirmed on appeal