In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court has dived into a crucial debate: how high a hurdle employers must clear to exempt workers from the protections of federal wage laws, including the right to overtime pay. Arguments on Tuesday centered on whether grocery distributor EMD Sales should have been required to meet an unusually stringent standard to prove that certain employees weren’t eligible for these protections.
At the heart of the case is a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that EMD Sales needed to provide “clear and convincing evidence” to classify its sales representatives as exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This standard, higher than the usual “preponderance of the evidence” required in most civil cases, stands out as an anomaly among appellate courts across the country.
During the hearing, the justices peppered both sides with questions, grappling with the implications of setting different standards for wage law cases compared to other civil statutes. The attorney representing the sales representatives, Lauren Bateman of Public Citizen, argued passionately that the FLSA’s protections are unique. She stressed that failing to enforce rigorous standards risks undercutting worker rights and incentivizes businesses to squeeze more hours from fewer employees without appropriate pay.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito voiced skepticism, pointing out that other laws with significant societal impact, such as environmental and public assistance statutes, don’t require the same elevated burden of proof. Roberts questioned whether wage protections deserve special treatment compared to these other areas.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, seemed more receptive to Bateman’s arguments, suggesting that wage laws might indeed involve more than just financial losses for workers, as they influence broader economic fairness and competition.
Representing EMD Sales, attorney Lisa Blatt countered that if Congress had intended for employers to face a tougher evidentiary standard, it would have explicitly mandated this when enacting the FLSA in 1938. Blatt highlighted that other critical employment laws have never been subject to heightened proof requirements.
The dispute traces back to a 2017 class action, where three EMD Sales employees alleged they were wrongly labeled as “outside sales employees” to deny them overtime pay. A 2021 ruling in favor of the workers found their primary duties revolved around stocking shelves and managing store inventory rather than making direct sales. The trial court’s insistence on EMD meeting the “clear and convincing” threshold set the stage for the appeal now before the Supreme Court.
The outcome of this case could reshape the landscape for workers and employers nationwide, potentially affecting how wage law exemptions are applied and the evidentiary hurdles companies must overcome.
