Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2016

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro

579 U.S. 211 | 195 L. Ed. 2d 282 | 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3924 | 136 S. Ct. 2117 | 195 L. Ed. 2d 382 | 84 U.S.L.W. 4424 | 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 295

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an agency cannot obtain Chevron deference for a major policy reversal without a reasoned explanation, particularly where its prior policy created substantial reliance interests; the Court left the underlying FLSA exemption question for the Ninth Circuit on remand.

Background

Five current and former service advisors at a Mercedes-Benz dealership alleged that the dealership violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying overtime for work exceeding 40 hours per week. Service advisors meet with customers, recommend and sell repair and maintenance services, prepare service orders, and communicate with customers while work is performed. They were paid commissions rather than a fixed salary or hourly wage.

The dealership argued that the advisors fell within the FLSA overtime exemption for "any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles" at a covered dealership, 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A). The District Court agreed and dismissed the suit. The Ninth Circuit reversed, deferring under Chevron to a 2011 Department of Labor regulation that read "salesman" to exclude service advisors because they sell services rather than vehicles.

The Department's position had shifted repeatedly. Its 1970 interpretive regulation excluded service advisors, but from 1978 through 2011 the Department generally treated them as exempt. In 2011, after proposing a rule that would have recognized the exemption, the Department instead adopted the opposite interpretation with little explanation. The Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Department of Labor's 2011 regulation excluding service advisors from the § 213(b)(10)(A) overtime exemption was entitled to Chevron deference.

Holding

No. The regulation was not entitled to Chevron deference because the Department adopted its changed position without the reasoned explanation required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Reasoning

Chevron deference ordinarily may apply when Congress authorizes an agency to issue binding regulations and the agency reasonably resolves a statutory ambiguity through proper procedures. But a regulation that is procedurally defective cannot carry the force of law and receives no Chevron deference.

An agency must examine the relevant material and articulate a satisfactory explanation connecting its decision to the facts and policy choice. It may change policy, but it must acknowledge the change, give good reasons for the new policy, and account for serious reliance interests created by its earlier position.

For decades, the Department had treated service advisors as exempt, and automobile dealerships had structured compensation arrangements around that understanding. The Department's reversal therefore threatened significant adjustments to industry pay practices and potential overtime liability, making a careful explanation especially important.

The Department offered only conclusory statements that service advisors were not included in the statute and that its interpretation was reasonable and appropriate. It did not explain why employees who sell automobiles should be exempt while employees who sell automobile services should not be, nor did it identify persuasive reasons for rejecting its own long-standing enforcement position.

A reviewing court may not supply reasons that the agency itself failed to give. Because the Department provided almost no explanation for its inconsistent policy despite substantial reliance interests, its 2011 rule was arbitrary and capricious and could not receive Chevron deference.

Issue #2

Whether service advisors are covered by the FLSA automobile-dealership overtime exemption in § 213(b)(10)(A).

Holding

The Court did not decide the question. It vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded for that court to interpret the statute without giving controlling weight to the invalidly explained 2011 regulation.

Reasoning

The Ninth Circuit's conclusion that service advisors were outside the exemption rested on Chevron deference to the Department's 2011 regulation. Once that regulation was denied Chevron deference, the premise of the Ninth Circuit's analysis no longer remained.

The Supreme Court left the statutory interpretation issue for the Ninth Circuit to address in the first instance on remand. The Court therefore did not definitively resolve whether service advisors qualify as salesmen primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.

Concurrences

Justice Ginsburg

Reasoning

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, agreed that the Department's 2011 rule lacked the required explanation for its policy reversal. The rulemaking revealed very little about the Department's actual reasons for returning to its earlier view that service advisors were not exempt.

She emphasized that the majority did not create a heightened arbitrary-and-capricious standard whenever an agency changes policy. Under FCC v. Fox Television Stations, an agency need not prove that its new policy is better than the old one; it need only adopt a permissible interpretation, supply good reasons, and consciously conclude that the new policy is preferable.

Reliance interests can expose the inadequacy of an agency's explanation, but they do not prevent an agency from changing course. If the Department adequately explained that extending overtime coverage was worth the costs to dealerships, a court could not reject that policy judgment merely because it would have reached a different result.

Justice Ginsburg also disagreed with Justice Thomas's view that the statutory issue should be resolved for the dealership. In her view, service advisors may be salesmen in a general sense yet still fall outside this particular exemption because they neither personally sell vehicles nor personally service vehicles. She considered the proper classification of service advisors a question best addressed by the Ninth Circuit on remand.

Dissents

Justice Thomas

Reasoning

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, agreed that the Department's 2011 regulation deserved no Chevron deference because it was procedurally defective. But he would not remand without deciding the statutory question the Court had granted review to resolve. In his view, the Court had an obligation to interpret the statute and reverse the Ninth Circuit.

He reasoned that service advisors are plainly "salesmen" under the ordinary meaning of that word because their job is to sell repair, maintenance, and related services to customers. The exemption does not define salesman as a person who sells only vehicles.

The statutory structure also supports coverage, he explained. The provision lists three employee categories—salesman, partsman, and mechanic—and two activities—selling and servicing—each joined by "or." Absent contextual limits, a salesman may therefore be primarily engaged in either selling or servicing automobiles.

A service advisor is primarily engaged in servicing automobiles because servicing encompasses providing maintenance and repair services, not merely physically performing repairs. Advisors act as the customer-facing link in determining and arranging the repairs and maintenance a vehicle needs.

Justice Thomas found further support in the exemption's inclusion of partsmen. Partsmen generally do not sell vehicles or personally repair them, yet they qualify because their work is integral to the servicing process. Service advisors likewise play an integral role in selling and providing vehicle services.

He rejected the argument that FLSA exemptions must be narrowly construed. In his view, courts should apply the statute's ordinary meaning rather than artificially constrict an exemption simply because the FLSA is remedial legislation. He would have held that service advisors fall within § 213(b)(10)(A) and reversed the Ninth Circuit.