Listen to this post

On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision in EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera, addressing the standard of proof employers must meet to establish that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court held employers need only prove employees meet an FLSA exemption by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely true than not), rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s use of the higher “clear-and-convincing-evidence” standard. This ruling carries significant implications for employers in the context of employee classification and defending against unpaid overtime claims.

FLSA: No Special Treatment Granted  

Generally, the FLSA requires employers to pay their employees a minimum wage and overtime compensation unless an employee meets the requirements of a statutory exemption. In clarifying that the appropriate standard of proof in FLSA exemption cases is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard rather than the Fourth Circuit’s clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, the Supreme Court emphasized that the former is consistent with the default standard used in American civil litigation. In civil litigation, the Court only deviates from the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in three main circumstances, none of which apply to FLSA exemption cases:

  1. If a statute establishes a heightened standard of proof;
  2. When the Constitution requires a heightened standard of proof; and
  3. In certain “uncommon” civil matters where a heightened standard of proof is required, for example, when the government seeks to take an unusual coercive action against an individual, i.e. taking away a person’s citizenship.

In making its determination, the Supreme Court rejected policy arguments suggesting that the FLSA’s focus on public interest warranted a higher standard of proof. The Court noted that other significant workplace protections, such as those under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (federal anti-discrimination law), similarly use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, further reinforcing the Court’s stance that the burden of proof in FLSA cases should not exceed this threshold.

Through its ruling in EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera, the Supreme Court aligned the Fourth Circuit with other appellate courts that have consistently applied the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, ensuring uniformity across jurisdictions and simplifying the legal landscape for employers.

Implications for Employers

The Court’s ruling clarifies that the burden of proof for FLSA exemptions will now be uniformly based on the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard across all jurisdictions. This development simplifies the legal process for employers, who no longer need to contend with varying standards of proof depending on the jurisdiction in which a case is heard. It also reduces the administrative burden on employers by removing some uncertainty surrounding the FLSA. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has noted, uncertainty over FLSA coverage can disrupt business expectations, reduce workforce investment, and deter commercial development due to the threat of costly litigation. The Court’s establishment of a uniform standard should assist in stabilizing business expectations moving forward.

To effectively defend against unpaid overtime claims, employers must ensure that their employee classifications—whether exempt or non-exempt—are well-documented and can be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. Proper documentation and clear records remain critical for defending exemption status under this standard of proof.

For more detailed information regarding how the Supreme Court’s new ruling impacts your business or organization, please contact Jenna Brofsky, Sarah Hamill, Joanna Rivers, or your Husch Blackwell attorney.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jenna Brofsky Jenna Brofsky

Clients benefit from having Jenna on their team, whether they need routine labor and employment counseling or representation for complex litigation. Jenna frequently advises employers on compliance with federal and state employment laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal

Clients benefit from having Jenna on their team, whether they need routine labor and employment counseling or representation for complex litigation. Jenna frequently advises employers on compliance with federal and state employment laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as numerous wage payment statutes.

Photo of Sarah Hamill Sarah Hamill

Sarah guides clients through labor and employment strategies that will keep them in compliance with the law—and make them the best employers possible. She practices from San Diego as a member of our virtual office, The Link.

Sarah’s true passion is educating clients,

Sarah guides clients through labor and employment strategies that will keep them in compliance with the law—and make them the best employers possible. She practices from San Diego as a member of our virtual office, The Link.

Sarah’s true passion is educating clients, helping them develop compliance plans, and enabling them to effect positive change for their employees. She sees herself as just as much of a teacher as she is an attorney: her goal is to help clients understand employment laws and their implications so that they can implement best practices and do the right thing for their employees. She’s known not only for her intelligence, legal acumen, and work ethic, but also for her kindness and her gift for explaining complex legal concepts. First drawn to law and to her practice area by her interest in economic development, Sarah understands how important clients’ businesses are to them, to their workers, and to their communities, and she values the opportunity to help clients ensure that their organizations are excellent places to work.

At the beginning of her career, Sarah devoted two years to clerkships in the district courts and worked at a boutique appellate firm. While she no longer litigates, her early experience means that she is extremely well-versed in civil procedure and understands the nuances of litigation well. Her background gives her an inside perspective on where employment practices can go wrong and what proactive steps clients can take to stay out of court. She has previously defended clients in a variety of employment matters, including allegations of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; wage and hour violations; and wrongful termination.

Photo of Joanna Rivers Joanna Rivers

Joanna focuses on labor and employment law.

Inspired by summers spent with her mother, a sheriff, at the Los Angeles courthouse, Joanna developed a deep passion for law. Joanna’s interest in law was further fueled by her involvement in speech and debate, mock

Joanna focuses on labor and employment law.

Inspired by summers spent with her mother, a sheriff, at the Los Angeles courthouse, Joanna developed a deep passion for law. Joanna’s interest in law was further fueled by her involvement in speech and debate, mock trial, and a semester at the public defender’s office during her undergraduate studies. During law school, she participated in a mediation clinic, where she honed her skills in active listening, empathy, and communication. She also served as a summer associate at Husch Blackwell, conducting research on employment matters, reviewing contracts, and observing mediations.

Joanna’s passion for labor and employment law is driven by a keen interest in trade secrets and non-compete agreements. She also defends clients in employment-related litigation. A judicial externship with the Arizona Court of Appeals provided her with valuable insights into the appellate and litigation processes, shaping her understanding of effective advocacy and the importance of clear, compelling legal reasoning.

Clients can expect Joanna to be efficient, reliable, and genuinely invested in their success. Known for her humility and dedication to continual learning, she stays informed about the latest legal developments and best practices. Joanna’s perspective as a first-generation attorney and an African American woman also enriches her practice, allowing her to approach each case with empathy and insight.