Earlier today (April 2, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that auto service advisers (also commonly referred to as “service writers”) are exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Today’s ruling in Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro et. al. has affirmatively answered the long-standing question as to whether auto service advisers
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro case, that many hoped would resolve the issue as to whether Service Advisors at auto dealerships are exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As we reported back in January 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition filed by an auto dealership, Encino Motorcars, challenging a Ninth Circuit decision holding that Service Advisors were not exempt from overtime pay requirements. Encino asked that the Court “restore uniformity” in legal precedent and hold that Service Advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. Auto dealers were hoping that the Supreme Court would bring certainty to this issue and follow prior decisions from the Fourth and Fifth Circuits holding that Service Advisors are salespeople exempt from overtime, instead of following the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision. Although the Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Court’s opinion leaves the issue open to further consideration.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Shoots Down DOL Regulations, But Declines To Rule Whether Service Advisors are Exempt From Overtime Pay Requirements
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016, the United States Supreme Court affirmed a $5.8 million dollar judgment against Tyson Foods Inc. in a class and collective action filed by workers claiming uncompensated time donning and doffing time. Contrary to what many predicated given the trend in class action rulings, the Court upheld the workers reliance on statistical analysis that used average time estimates to determine overtime owed for class recovery.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Upholds $5.8 Million Judgment Based on Statistical Analysis