join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro et al (US 2016)

Articles Discussing Case:

Supreme Court Rejects Deference to DOL Regulation on FLSA Exemption Due to Failure to Provide Reasoned Explanation for Change

Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 23, 2016
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 15-415 (June 20, 2016), to resolve a circuit court split regarding whether “service advisors” are exempt from receiving overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Although the parties thoroughly briefed the issue, the Court did not resolve the question. Instead, as Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, the Court decided to “punt” (likely due to an inability to garner a majority opinion because of the vacancy at the Court caused by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death that has left it with just eight members since February). Automobile dealers are likely to face uncertainty a while longer.

The Supreme Court Shoots Down DOL Regulations, But Declines To Rule Whether Service Advisors are Exempt From Overtime Pay Requirements

Franczek Radelet P.C • June 22, 2016
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro case, that many hoped would resolve the issue as to whether Service Advisors at auto dealerships are exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Supreme Court Calls “Do Over” On FLSA Service Advisor Exemption Rule

Fisher Phillips • June 21, 2016
In a 6 to 2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today continued the flip-flop-flip on determining whether an automobile dealership’s service advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The Court vacated and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings, essentially calling a “do over.” For dealerships in the 9th Circuit – those in California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana – this case provides a hopeful reprieve (Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro et al).