Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, Docket No. 16-1362

Labor: Fair Labor Standards Act: Overtime compensation:

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §201 et seq., requires employers to pay overtime compensation to covered employees. The FLSA exempts from the overtime-pay requirement “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles” at a covered dealership. §213(b)(10)(A). We granted certiorari to decide whether this exemption applies to service advisors—employees at car dealerships who consult with customers about their servicing needs and sell them servicing solutions. We conclude that service advisors are exempt.

Enacted in 1938, the FLSA requires employers to pay overtime to covered employees who work more than 40hours in a week. 29 U. S. C. §207(a). But the FLSA exempts many categories of employees from this requirement. See §213. Employees at car dealerships have long been among those exempted.

(…) In 2011, however, the Department reversed course. It issued a rule that interpreted “salesman” to exclude service advisors. 76 Fed. Reg. 18832, 18859 (2011) (codified at 29 CFR §779.372(c)). That regulation prompted this litigation (…) We explained that courts cannot defer to the 2011 rule because it is procedurally defective. See Encino I, 579 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 8–12).

(…) The parties agree that petitioner is a “nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling automobiles to ultimate purchasers.” The parties also agree that a service advisor is not a “partsman” or “mechanic,” and that a service advisor is not “primarily engaged . . . in selling automobiles.” The question, then, is whether service advisors are “salesmen. . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.” We conclude that they are. Under the best reading of the text, service advisors are “salesmen,” and they are “primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.” The distributive canon, the practice of construing FLSA exemptions narrowly, and the legislative history do not persuade us otherwise.

Secondary authorities: Dept. of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles 33 (3d ed. 1965) (defining “partsman” as someone who “purchases, stores, and issues spare parts for automotive and industrial equipment”); In the dissent (fn. 3): D. VanDeusen, Labor and Employment Law §176.02[1] (2018).

(U.S.S.C., April 2, 2018, Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, Docket No. 16-1362, J. Thomas)

La loi fédérale FLSA prévoit un système d'indemnisation des heures supplémentaires à charge de l'employeur. Les employés du domaine automobile engagés dans la vente ou dans la fourniture de services ne sont pas protégés par dite loi. En l'espèce, la Cour juge que les conseillers à la clientèle des points de vente et réparations ne sont pas protégés non plus.

La présente affaire rappelle que FLSA, qui date de l'année 1938, impose aux employeurs du personnel couvert par la loi d'indemniser le temps de travail supplémentaire quand l'employé travaille plus de 40 heures par semaine. Dite loi contient cependant de nombreuses exceptions.