Docket 23-217

Emd Sales Inc. v. Carrera

OT2024from United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitEconomy

DecidedJan 15, 2025

9-0unanimous decision

Source: CourtListener.

What it does

The Court held that the ordinary preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — meaning the employer must show it is more likely than not that an exemption applies — governs FLSA exemption disputes. The stricter "clear and convincing evidence" standard used by the Fourth Circuit is incorrect. The case was sent back to the lower court to re-evaluate whether the employees qualify as outside salesmen under the correct, lower standard.

Who benefits

Employers who seek to classify workers as exempt from FLSA minimum-wage and overtime requirements, since they now face a lower burden of proof to establish that an exemption applies.

Who is affected

Workers who claim they are owed overtime pay or minimum wages under the FLSA, since their employers now need only show it is more likely than not — rather than clearly and convincingly — that an exemption covers the worker's job.

Practical impact

Employers in all federal circuits now face a uniform, lower burden when arguing that a worker falls into an FLSA exemption category: they must show it is more likely than not, not prove it clearly and convincingly. This resolves a split among the federal appeals courts, ending the stricter standard that had applied only in the Fourth Circuit (covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina). Workers in those states who previously benefited from the higher employer burden will now have their exemption disputes decided under the same, easier-to-meet standard used everywhere else.

Majority reasoning

The majority held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — the ordinary default in American civil lawsuits since at least 1938 — applies when an employer tries to prove a worker is exempt from FLSA overtime and minimum-wage rules. The Court reasoned that courts depart from this default only in three narrow situations: when a statute explicitly requires a higher standard, when the Constitution demands one, or when the government is taking an unusually severe action against an individual (like stripping someone of citizenship) — and none of those apply here. Because the FLSA is silent on the standard of proof for exemptions, the default preponderance standard fills that gap. The Court also compared FLSA cases to employment discrimination cases under Title VII, where the preponderance standard already applies, finding no principled reason to treat FLSA cases differently. The majority rejected the employees' policy arguments — that the FLSA's public-interest purpose or the non-waivable nature of its rights required a higher bar — finding that other important workplace laws with similar features also use the preponderance standard.

Constitutional question

What standard of proof must an employer satisfy to show that an employee qualifies for an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum-wage and overtime-pay requirements — the ordinary "preponderance of the evidence" standard (more likely than not), or the stricter "clear and convincing evidence" standard?

Precedent changed

The ruling reverses the Fourth Circuit's precedent requiring clear and convincing evidence for FLSA exemptions, bringing that circuit in line with every other federal appeals court that had addressed the question.