E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers only need to meet a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) standard to prove a worker is exempt from overtime pay. This decision overturned a lower court ruling that required a much tougher clear and convincing evidence standard. The case started when sales representatives for a food distributor sued for unpaid overtime, arguing they were not actually outside salesmen.

This ruling makes it easier for companies to win lawsuits regarding unpaid overtime by lowering their burden of proof in court. Thousands of workers across various industries who claim they were misclassified as exempt may now find it harder to secure back pay. For example, a delivery driver or salesperson must now overcome an employer's argument that is supported by only a simple majority of the evidence.

For years, different federal courts were split on how much proof an employer needed to deny overtime benefits under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Most courts used the lower standard, but one influential court required much stronger evidence to protect worker rights. The Supreme Court stepped in to create a single, uniform rule that applies to all workplaces across the United States.

In a 9-0 decision, Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion joined by all other justices, while Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas.

“The default standard of proof in American civil litigation is preponderance of the evidence, and courts only deviate from this standard in three specific circumstances.”

Employers now face a lower legal hurdle when trying to prove that their employees are not eligible for overtime pay.

Lower courts will immediately begin applying this easier standard to ongoing wage and hour lawsuits across the country. Labor advocates and agencies will likely monitor whether this leads to an increase in companies classifying workers as exempt to avoid paying overtime. Affected parties should watch for how this ruling influences future settlements in employment discrimination and wage cases.

The workers sued for unpaid overtime wages they believed they earned. The company argued they were outside salesmen and therefore exempt from overtime laws.

Employees may lose more cases because employers no longer need highly convincing evidence. A simple majority of evidence is now enough to deny overtime claims.

The Court held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies to all Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions. This is the default standard used in most civil trials.

The case will likely return to lower courts to be re-evaluated. Judges must now weigh the evidence using the lower standard set by the Supreme Court.

The Court continues to favor uniform standards that align with traditional civil litigation rules. This limits special protections that some lower courts had created for workers.