The Work Week with Bassford Remele

October 7, 2024

Welcome to another edition of The Work Week with Bassford Remele. Each Monday morning, we will publish and send a new article to your inbox to hopefully assist you in jumpstarting your work week.

Bassford Remele Employment Practice Group

***

Supreme Court Hears Two Pivotal Employment Law Cases

Daniel R. Olson

The U.S. Supreme Court kicks off the 2024/2025 term today. As was the case for each of the past two years, the Court will issue another pair of employment-law decisions that will impact employers: E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera and Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla. Below is our annual preview of the Supreme Court docket for employers.

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

The issue in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera is what evidentiary burden of proof employers must satisfy to establish an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). E.M.D. involved several employees of a grocery distributor who claimed they were misclassified as exempt “outside salespersons” and, therefore, owed overtime pay. The parties agreed that the employees worked more than 40 hours per week and were paid on a commission basis. Following a nine-day bench trial, the district court found that the employees were not “outside salespersons” exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, and entered judgment in favor of the employees. In doing so, the district court applied a clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard, which is a higher standard of proof than a preponderance-of-evidence standard used in most civil cases. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Circuits are currently split on whether to apply the clear-and-convincing standard or a preponderance-of-evidence standard when analyzing exempt status under the FLSA. If the Supreme Court determines that a clear-and-convincing standard is the appropriate test, it will be more challenging for employers to prove the exempt status of an employee.

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla.

Stanley v. City of Sandford, Fla. focuses on whether a retired employee can maintain a disability-discrimination claim against an employer’s denial of post-employment benefits. The plaintiff in Stanley was a former municipal firefighter. Following two decades of employment, she took disability retirement due to her battle with Parkinson’s. Unbeknownst to her, the City modified its benefits plan years after her employment began. Whereas the City initially offered free health insurance up to the age of 65 for any employee retiring due to a qualifying disability, the City changed its plan to only provide for 24 months of free health insurance. The plaintiff sued, claiming the reduction in benefits was unlawful discrimination on the basis of her disability. The district court dismissed her complaint, concluding that disabled former employees have no standing to sue under the ADA because they are no longer “qualified individuals.” The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Here again, circuits are split as to whether disabled former employees have standing to sue their former employer under the ADA. If the circuit split is resolved in favor of disabled retired employees, employers will face great coverage (and exposure) with their retired, disabled employers.

At Bassford Remele, we regularly monitor important changes in case law and legislation and advise our clients on the same. We’ll provide updates when both E.D.M. and Stanley are decided, including the ramifications for employers thereafter.

***

Newsletter: The Work Week with Bassford Remele

Each Monday morning, the Bassford Remele Employment Team publishes and sends an article on a timely topic to your inbox to hopefully assist you in jumpstarting your work week. (Previous articles can be found at the bottom of the Employment Practice Group page.)

Subscribe to The Work Week here.

***

The Work Week with Bassford Remele, 10-7-24 (print version)

***

Bassford Remele proudly serves as local and national counsel for many major corporations and Fortune 500 Companies and is a go-to litigation firm representing local, national, and international clients in state and federal courts across the region. The firm provides comprehensive counsel and representation in litigation and dispute resolution, family law, and corporate matters, ensuring prompt and effective service for its clients.

Established in 1882, Bassford Remele is proud to be the oldest top-25 law firm based in Minnesota.

Bassford Remele | October 7, 2024