On Wednesday, January 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion that disputes regarding overtime exemption classifications under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) should apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, rather than the higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”
In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, employees for the international food distributor E.M.D. Sales alleged they were misclassified as exempt from overtime and argued that the clear and convincing standard was necessary to uphold worker protections. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, stating that other workplace protections, such as those under Title VII, are subject to the preponderance standard, and FLSA cases are akin to Title VII cases. In addition, overtime exemptions do not warrant the higher standard because the FLSA itself does not provide for it, so when “faced with silence, courts usually apply the default preponderance standard,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
The more demanding standard is only appropriate in certain other ‘uncommon cases’ in civil litigation: when a statute requires it; when the Constitution requires it; and under Supreme Court precedent in cases in which the government pursues drastic action against a person, such as taking citizenship away.
The case resolved a circuit split in which most courts agreed that the default preponderance rule was appropriate in such cases. In July 2023, the Fourth Circuit held that E.M.D. Sales and its owner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the workers fell under the FLSA’s “outside sales” exemption. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s opinion and has remanded the case so that the correct standard of evidence can be applied.