Cover image of Encino Motorcars

Encino Motorcars Podcasts

Read more

5 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Encino Motorcars. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Encino Motorcars, often where they are interviewed.

Read more

5 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Encino Motorcars. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Encino Motorcars, often where they are interviewed.

Updated daily with the latest episodes

Episode artwork

One Year Later: Impact of Encino Motorcars on FLSA Litigation

Play
Read more
Just over a year ago, in a case involving an obscure car dealership exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirement, the Supreme Court established a new standard for interpretation of FLSA exemptions. Citing Justice Scalia’s final book, Reading the Law, the Court rejected the made-up cannon that courts must narrowly construe FLSA exemptions; rather, the Court held, FLSA exemptions must be given a fair interpretation. One year later, how has this change from “narrow” to “fair” interpretations impacted FLSA litigation and DOL investigations?
Featuring:
Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Jun 27 2019 · 25mins
Episode artwork

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Play
Read more
On April 2, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, a case on its second trip to the high court regarding a dispute over the interpretation of the Fair Labor Standard Act’s overtime-pay requirements and whether it exempts service advisors at car dealerships.
Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938 to “protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours,” and it requires overtime pay for employees covered under the Act who work more than 40 hours in a given week. The FLSA exempts from this requirement, however, “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements, if he is employed by a nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling such vehicles or implements to ultimate purchasers….”
Hector Navarro and other service advisors filed suit against their employer Encino Motorcars, alleging that it violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime wages. Encino countered that as service advisors, Navarro and the other plaintiffs fell within the FLSA exemption. The district court ruled in favor of Encino, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, relying upon a 2011 regulation issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) and indicating that service advisors were not covered by the exemption. The Supreme Court, however, thereafter vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, determining that the regulation at issue was procedurally defective and remanded the case for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider without “placing controlling weight” on the DOL regulation. On remand, the Ninth Circuit, using the distributive canon of statutory interpretation, held that the FLSA exemption did not encompass service advisors. The Supreme Court again granted certiorari.
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held that “service advisors are exempt from the overtime-pay requirement of the FLSA because they are ‘salesm[e]n...primarily engaged in...servicing automobiles.’ §213(b)(10)(A)." Justice Thomas’ majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
To discuss the case, we have Tammy McCutchen, Principal at Littler Mendelson, PC.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
May 01 2018 · 15mins
Episode artwork

Encino motorcars v Navarro (FLSA Overtime)

Play
Read more
Determination that service advisors fit into the FLSAs overtime exemption.

Support the show (https://paypal.me/SCOTUSsyllabus)

Apr 02 2018 · 5mins
Episode artwork

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Play
Read more
On January 17, 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, a case on its second trip to the high court regarding a dispute over the application of the Fair Labor Standard Act’s overtime-pay requirements for service advisors at car dealerships.
Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938 to “protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours,” and it requires overtime pay for employees covered under the Act who work more than 40 hours in a given week. The FLSA exempts from this requirement, however, “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements, if he is employed by a nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling such vehicles or implements to ultimate purchasers….”
Hector Navarro and other service advisors filed suit against their employer Encino Motorcars, alleging that it violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime wages. Encino countered that as service advisors, Navarro and the other plaintiffs fell within the FLSA exemption. The district court ruled in favor of Encino, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, relying upon a 2011 regulation issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) and indicating that service advisors were not covered by the exemption. The Supreme Court, however, thereafter vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. Determining that the regulation at issue was procedurally defective, the Court remanded the case for the Ninth Circuit to construe the FLSA exemption without “placing controlling weight” on the DOL regulation.
On remand, the Ninth Circuit, assuming without deciding that the DOL regulation was entitled to no weight, held that the FLSA exemption, on its own terms, did not encompass service advisors. As a result, the court indicated, plaintiffs could proceed against Encino on their claims for overtime. Encino petitioned for certiorari, however, and the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case a second time to consider again whether service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirements.
To discuss the case, we have Tammy McCutchen, Principal at Littler Mendelson, PC.
This podcast is cosponsored with the Labor & Employment Law Practice Group.
Feb 21 2018 · 18mins
Episode artwork

SCOTUS Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, Case No. 16-1362

Play
Read more
Labor: Are service advisors at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. §213(b)(10)(A) from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirements? - Argued: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:00:00 EST
Jan 13 2018 ·