SCOTUS: FLSA Exemption Defense Does Not Require a Higher Standard of Proof
In E.M.D. In an FLSA dispute, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove their claims. If the employer is defending by claiming that an exemption applies to the case, then the employer must prove the exemption. The Supreme Court was asked to decide the level of proof that was required. In 1938, when Congress passed the FLSA and President Franklin D. Roosevelt ratified it, the “preponderance” standard was the default standard for civil litigation in the United States. That standard–which allows both parties to “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion,” in the Court’s words–remains the default standard of proof in American civil litigation today.
In civil litigation, the Supreme Court has deviated from the default preponderance standard in three main circumstances:
where a statute expressly requires a heightened standard of proof;
where the Constitution requires a heightened standard of proof; and
- in “uncommon” cases where Supreme Court precedent holds that a heightened standard of proof is appropriate, including where the government seeks to take action “more dramatic than entering an award of money damages or other conventional relief” against an individual (e.g., revocation of citizenship).
- With none of these circumstances present, the Court held that the default preponderance standard governs when an employer seeks to prove that an employee is exempt under the FLSA. The Court quickly disposed of the plaintiff-employees’ policy arguments, noting that “
- f clear and convincing evidence is not required in Title VII cases, it is hard to see why it would be required in
cases.”[i]Proskauer’s Wage and Hour Group is comprised of seasoned litigators who regularly advise the world’s leading companies to help them avoid, minimize, and manage exposure to wage and hour-related risk. Subscribe to our wage and hour blog to stay current on the latest developments.[FLSA]
