Rimon

Supreme Court Aligns Fourth Circuit with National Standard for FLSA Exemptions in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

Insights Supreme Court Aligns Fourth Circuit with National Standard for FLSA Exemptions in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera Robert H. Pepple · Supreme Court Aligns Fourth Circuit with National Standard for FLSA Exemptions in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera Robert (Bob) Cocchia · January 21, 2025

In a significant decision that reshapes, and harmonizes, the landscape of employment law across all Circuits, the Supreme Court has handed employers a significant victory in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) disputes. In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by holding that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when employers seek to prove exemptions under the FLSA. This decision reverses the Fourth Circuit’s application of a clear and convincing evidence standard and aligns it with the precedent followed by every other federal appellate court. The decision simplifies the burden of proof for employers defending against FLSA claims and establishes a uniform standard across all jurisdictions.

The “Preponderance of Evidence” Standard Governs FLSA Exemption Defenses

The Court emphasized that preponderance of the evidence is the default burden of proof in civil litigation unless specific exceptions apply. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the unanimous Court, outlined three situations where a heightened burden might be required, reasoning (later in the opinion) that none applied to the FLSA exemptions:

  1. Statutory Directive: When Congress explicitly mandates a heightened burden, such as in whistleblower-retaliation claims under the FLSA (29 U.S.C. §218c(b)(1)) or union-trustee cases (§464(c)) (Slip Op., at 5).
  2. Constitutional Mandate: Where due process or constitutional protections require heightened proof, such as involuntary civil commitment (Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427 (1979)) and parental rights termination (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 748 (1982)) (Slip Op., at 6).
  3. Extraordinary Government Action: In cases involving “unusual coercive action,” such as denaturalization or expatriation (Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 137 (1958)), heightened proof is warranted (Slip Op., at 6).

The Supreme Court’s decision in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera establishes uniformity across federal circuits for FLSA exemption cases, bringing the Fourth Circuit—covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina—into alignment with the national standard.

If your organization operates across multiple states, particularly within the Fourth Circuit, this decision may significantly impact your wage and hour compliance strategies. Employers should take this opportunity to review their exemption classifications and defense documentation to ensure they meet the newly standardized preponderance-of-the-evidence threshold. For guidance on how this ruling affects your business or to proactively evaluate your FLSA compliance, contact Robert H. Pepple and Bob Cocchia today.

This summary is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with Rimon, P.C. or its affiliates.