Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 652.0

529US2

Unit: $U53

[09-26-01 10:37:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 576 (2000)

577

Syllabus

has violated § 207. Two other features of the FLSA support this inter-
pretation: Employers are permitted to decrease the number of hours
that employees work, and employers also may cash out accumulated
compensatory time by paying the employee his regular hourly wage for
each hour accrued. The county’s policy merely involves doing both of
these steps at once. A Department of Labor opinion letter taking the
position that an employer may compel the use of compensatory time
only if the employee has agreed in advance to such a practice is not
entitled to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837.
Interpretations such as those in
opinion letters—like interpretations contained in policy statements,
agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force
of law—do not warrant Chevron-style deference. They are “entitled to
respect,” but only to the extent that they are persuasive, Skidmore v.
Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140, which is not the case here. Chevron
deference does apply to an agency interpretation contained in a regula-
tion, but nothing in the Department of Labor’s regulation even arguably
requires that an employer’s compelled use policy must be included in an
agreement. And deference to an agency’s interpretation of its regula-
tion is warranted under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461, only when
the regulation’s language is ambiguous, which is not the case here.
Pp. 582–588.

158 F. 3d 241, afﬁrmed.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined, and in which
Scalia, J., joined except as to Part III. Souter, J., ﬁled a concurring
opinion, post, p. 589. Scalia, J., ﬁled an opinion concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment, post, p. 589. Stevens, J., ﬁled a dissent-
ing opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 592.
Breyer, J., ﬁled a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined,
post, p. 596.

Michael T. Leibig argued the cause for petitioners. With
him on the briefs were Richard H. Cobb and Murray E.
Malakoff.

Matthew D. Roberts argued the cause for the United
States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On the brief
were Solicitor General Waxman, Deputy Solicitor General
Kneedler, Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Allen H. Feldman, and
Edward D. Sieger.