Our office is currently closed, but we continue to provide legal services by working remotely.

In light of Governor Wolf’s emergency declaration and current recommendations our office is currently closed.  Our attorneys and staff continue to work remotely, however, and we can assure you they are set up to respond to your calls, emails and all communications.  For more details on AMM operations during this time, read our full update.  

Thank you for your understanding, and please take care.

Supreme Court Finds ‘Service Advisors’ Exempt from Overtime Rules

Thursday, 03 May 2018 20:23 Written by  Patricia Collins

Reprinted with permission from the April 18th, 2018 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. (c) 2018 ALM Media Properties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro interprets a very specific exemption to the overtime rules imposed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), but the Court’s language and reasoning have game-changing ramifications.  The Court’s rejection of the principle that courts should narrowly construe exemptions to the FLSA turns decades of FLSA caselaw on its head.

The facts of Encino Motorcars are deceptively narrow.  Employees classified as service advisors for a car dealership challenged the car dealership’s classification of the service advisors as exempt from the FLSA.  The FLSA requires that employers must pay overtime to employees who work more than 40 hours in a week.  29 U.S.C. § 207(a).  The dealership claimed the exemption under a statutory exemption that applies to car dealerships.  29 U.S.C. § 213.  Specifically, the section in question exempts from overtime pay requirements:

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.


The employees in question worked for a car dealership as service advisors, and their duties included meeting with customers, listening to their concerns about their vehicles, and then making suggestions for repairs or other services, repair parts or accessories. The employees challenged the classification based on a rule from the Department of Labor, issued in 2011, nothing that the word “salesman” did not include service advisors.  The district court dismissed the claim, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, but the Supreme Court remanded, finding the Ninth Circuit’s basis for reversal procedurally defective.  On remand,  the Ninth Circuit held that the service advisors were exempt under the FLSA, pursuant to Section 213(b)(10)(A).  The Ninth Circuit held that the application of the “distributive canon” required the conclusion that service advisors were not included in the exemption.  Specifically, the court noted that the particular gerunds -  “selling and servicing” - should be distributed to their appropriate subjects – salesman, partsman, or mechanic.    Further, the Ninth Circuit noted that the exclusion of service advisors despite the reference to them in the applicable Occupational Outlook Handbook required the same conclusion.  Finally, the Ninth Circuit relied on the principle that exemptions to the FLSA should be construed narrowly, that is, the statute does not say “service advisor” so service advisors are not exempt.

The Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion.  The Court noted that there was no dispute that the exemption applied to the car dealership, and that the service advisor is not a partsman or mechanic.  Thus, the Court stated the issue, perhaps burying the conclusion therein, as follows:  Whether service advisors are salespeople primarily engaged in servicing automobiles.  The Court broadly noted that a service advisor is “obviously” a salesperson, and that these service advisors were likewise engaged in “servicing” vehicles.  In reversing the Ninth Circuit and concluding that service advisors are salespeople primarily engaged in servicing automobiles, the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s use of the distributive canon.  The Court noted that “the entire exemption bespeaks breadth,” primarily in its use of the word “any.”  The more “natural reading”, the Court held, is that the exemption covers any combination of its nouns, gerunds and objects.  

This rejection of the Ninth Circuit’s use of the distributive canon is not the remarkable part of the Court’s decision.  That part comes next.  The Supreme Court noted the following:

The Ninth Circuit also invoked the principle that exemption of the FLSA should be construed narrowly….  We reject this principle as a useful guidepost for interpreting the FLSA.

The Court went further, noting:

The narrow-construction principle relies on the flawed premise that the FLSA “pursues” its remedial purposes “at all costs.”

With these words, the Supreme Court ushered in a dramatic change in the interpretation of the FLSA’s exemptions.

The Supreme Court rejected a well-settled principle that courts must narrowly construe exemptions to the FLSA in order to serve the Act’s remedial purposes.  Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 463 (1997); Arnold v. Ben Kankowsky Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392 (1960); Phillips Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 493 (1945).  Indeed, it is a generally accepted principle of statutory construction that courts must construe exceptions to remedial statutes narrowly in order to serve that remedial purpose.  See, e.g., Phillips, 324 U.S. at 493 (“Any exemption from such humanitarian and remedial legislation must therefore be narrowly construed, giving due regard to the plain meaning of statutory language and the intent of Congress”).  This Supreme Court now deems that principle “flawed”.  This sweeping pronouncement may come as a shock to employment law attorneys who have assumed the application of the principle to FLSA and other compliance actions, as well as discrimination and accommodation cases.

The examples of lower courts applying this principle are too many too list.  And, in practice, attorneys advising employers have, in turn, narrowly applied the exemptions to their clients’ employees.  Rejection of the narrow-construction principle will dramatically change the manner in which FLSA exemptions are construed, along with exemptions and exclusions in discrimination statutes such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Indeed, the Court’s holding in Encino Motorcars may encourage some risk taking in the application of the FLSA exemptions, increasing flexibility for employers, but decreasing pay protections for employees.  Employment law practitioners will have to balance the historical application of the exemptions with this extraordinary language from the Supreme Court.    

Last modified on Thursday, 03 May 2018 20:30
Patricia Collins

Patricia Collins

Patty has been practicing law since 1996 in the areas of Employment Law, Health Care and Litigation, with extensive experience in advising employers and health care providers as well as complex litigation in federal and state courts. Patty’s knowledge of employment law includes the Employee Retirement Income Security Act; federal and state employment discrimination laws, and employment contracts and wage claims.

To view Patricia Collins' full profile, click here.

Leave a comment

Blogger Bios

  • Alan Wandalowski Alan Wandalowski
    Alan concentrates his practice in Estate Planning, Estate Administration, Elder Law, Estate…
  • Bill MacMinn Bill MacMinn
    Bill concentrates his practice in the area of litigation, including Commercial Litigation,…
  • Christopher D. Wagner Christopher D. Wagner
    Christopher Wagner is an experienced and results-driven business law attorney with a comprehensive understanding…
  • Elaine T. Yandrisevits Elaine T. Yandrisevits
    As an estate planning attorney, Elaine Yandrisevits is committed to guiding individuals…
  • Elizabeth J. Fineman Elizabeth J. Fineman
    Elizabeth Fineman concentrates her practice on domestic relations matters and handles a…
  • Gabriel Montemuro Gabriel Montemuro
    Gabe’s practice focuses on litigation, including commercial litigation, personal injury, estate and…
  • Jessica A. Pritchard Jessica A. Pritchard
    Jessica A. Pritchard, focuses her practice exclusively in the area of family…
  • Joanne Murray Joanne Murray
    Joanne concentrates her practice in the areas of Business Law, Business Transactions,…
  • John Trainer John Trainer
    John’s concentrates his legal practice in estate planning, estate administration and elder…
  • Mariam Ibrahim Mariam Ibrahim
    Mariam Ibrahim is dedicated to helping clients and their families navigate the…
  • Michael Klimpl Michael Klimpl
    Michael’s practice areas include Real Estate, Municipal Law, Zoning and Land Use, Employment…
  • Michael W. Mills Michael W. Mills
    Mike is devoted to helping businesses build value and improve working capital,…
  • Patricia Collins Patricia Collins
    Patty has been practicing law since 1996 in the areas of Employment…
  • Peter J. Smith Peter J. Smith
    Pete is a business lawyer and trusted partner to his corporate clients…
  • Stephanie M. Shortall Stephanie M. Shortall
    Throughout her career, Stephanie has developed a practice focused on advising closely…
  • Susan Maslow Susan Maslow
    Sue concentrates her practice primarily in general corporate transactional work and finance…
  • Thomas P. Donnelly Thomas P. Donnelly
    Tom’s practice focuses on commercial litigation and transactions. In litigation, Tom represents…