Issue
Whether pharmaceutical company sales representatives are entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Facts
Two sales representatives from a pharmaceutical company work for an average of fifty hours a week, ten more hours than the usual workweek for Americans. This extra time spent was compensated for with bonus pay commensurate with sales as well as a salary. The employees sued their employer arguing that they were entitled to overtime pay for working over forty hours in a week under the Fair Labor Standards Act FLSA. The FLSA laid out the baseline overtime pay that employers must pay employees who work more than forty hours a week. In addition to the overtime rule, the FLSA also carved out several exceptions to overtime pay, including “outside salesmen,” who the Secretary of Labor defines as an employee who primarily works outside of their employer’s office.
CCJ filed an amicus curiae brief in support of SmithKline Beecham Corp.
Summary:
The plan of government outlined in the Constitution relies on the separation of powers to protect individual liberty. Further, the plan relies on each branch of government to jealously guard its powers in order to prevent encroachment. Granting “controlling deference” to an Executive agency's interpretation of its own regulations is an abdication of that duty. In other words, if the Supreme Court allows the Secretary of Labor to define an “outside salesman” and then use that definition without question or review, then the Court forfeits in a large measure its independence and power.
Active judicial review will serve Congress' aims that agencies promulgate their policies pursuant to procedures that provide for public participation and appropriate judicial review.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court did end up taking this case, and thus handed down the controlling decision with a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Alito. The Court held that pharmaceutical sales representatives did indeed fall under the “outside salesman” exemption for overtime pay under the FLSA. This is consistent with CCJ argument in this case because the Court found that it need not bind itself to the Secretary of Labor’s definition of “outside salesman” under the FLSA, which preserves the separation of powers that the Framers set forth in the Constitution.
