The E.M.D. Sales decision is the latest in Supreme Court decisions addressing the evidentiary playing field between employers and employees in FLSA jurisprudence. In 2018, in Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, the court held that FLSA exemptions should not be construed narrowly due to the “remedial purpose” of the statute, but instead should receive a “fair reading.”
On Jan. 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera, holding that a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard rather than a heightened clear-and-convincing-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 (FLSA). The E.M.D. Sales decision is the latest in Supreme Court decisions addressing the evidentiary playing field between employers and employees in FLSA jurisprudence. In 2018, in Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 584 U.S. 79 (2018), the court held that FLSA exemptions should not be construed narrowly due to the “remedial purpose” of the statute, but instead should receive a “fair reading.”
In E.M.D. Sales, sales representatives sued E.M.D. alleging that they were entitled to overtime under the FLSA. E.M.D. argued that the sales representatives were exempt from overtime under the FLSA's “outside salesman” exemption. At trial the district court found that E.M.D. failed to prove that the sales representatives qualified for the as outside sales exemption by “clear and convincing evidence.” Appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, E.M.D. challenged the application of the heightened clear and convincing evidence standard, instead contending that the district court should have evaluated whether the sales employees were exempt from overtime under the outside sales exemption under the less-strict preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The Fourth Circuit, following previous circuit precedent, affirmed the district court's decision. All other circuits that previously had addressed this question had applied a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
Originally published by The Legal Intelligencer.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
