Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Supreme Court hears EMD Sales v. Carrera in dispute over standard of proof for FLSA exemptions
Loading...
Summary
In EMD Sales v. Carrera, petitioners argued the Fair Labor Standards Act's exemptions should be judged by a preponderance of the evidence while respondents urged a clear-and-convincing standard because of the statute's remedial goals and nonwaivability; the case was submitted for decision.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in EMD Sales v. Carrera on Dec. 5, 2025, over whether employers must prove exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act by a preponderance of the evidence or by the higher clear-and-convincing standard. Miss Blatt, counsel for the petitioner, told the justices that "for over a century, this court has held that the default standard in civil cases is preponderance of the evidence," and that nothing in the statute's text suggests Congress intended a heightened standard for any of the Act's exemptions.
Miss Blatt argued the court below applied the wrong standard and urged remand so the district court can determine in the first instance whether the record supports an exemption under the preponderance standard. She pointed to testimonial evidence the petitioner says supports an exemption finding: CEO testimony about sales duties, sales representatives' accounts of opportunity, and testimony from a former Walmart buyer about store merchandising practices.
Government counsel agreed that the preponderance standard is the ordinary default in civil litigation and told the justices the Court has departed from that rule only rarely and typically where constitutional interests or particularly severe deprivations are implicated. "The court has only departed from that default in a tiny number of cases where the constitution required it or in cases involving a significant deprivation more dramatic than money damages," Miss Brown said, arguing the lower courts should be left to apply the appropriate standard on remand.
Respondents' counsel, Miss Bateman, urged the Court to require a clear-and-convincing burden for employers proving exemptions, saying the FLSA's broad remedial purpose and the statute's nonwaivability justify a higher proof requirement. She pointed to the statute's statement of purpose in section 202(b) and argued that errors depriving workers of wages create greater social harm than errors imposing costs on employers. "Thus, it's sensible to insist that where an employer seeks to prove that an employee is exempt from these protections, the employer must do so clearly and convincingly," Miss Bateman said.
Throughout the argument multiple justices probed how to distinguish ordinary monetary claims from those that warrant heightened proof and asked how courts should weigh statutory structure, congressional silence, and background common-law principles in determining the applicable burden. Counsel generally agreed that remand would allow the district court to revisit factual findings under whatever standard the Court announces.
The case raises a practical question for lower courts: if the Court rejects the heightened standard, should appellate courts simply remand for the district court to reweigh the existing record under preponderance, or should the Court itself resolve the exemption question? Counsel told the justices that the ordinary practice is to remand the factual findings to the trial court, especially where a bench trial and full transcript are available.
The justices submitted the case for decision.