Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6

PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

case to defend the Administrator’s Interpretation.2 

The  District  Court  granted  summary  judgment  to  the
Department.    Mortgage  Bankers  Assn.  v.  Solis,  864 
F. Supp.  2d  193  (DC  2012).  Though  it  accepted  the  par-
ties’ characterization of the Administrator’s Interpretation
as an interpretive rule, id., at 203, n. 7, the District Court 
determined  that  the  Paralyzed  Veterans  doctrine  was 
inapplicable  because  MBA  had  failed  to  establish  its  reli-
ance  on  the  contrary  interpretation  expressed  in  the  De-
partment’s  2006  opinion  letter.    The  Administrator’s  In-
terpretation,  the  District  Court  further  determined,  was 
fully supported by the text of the 2004 FLSA regulations.
The  court  accordingly  held  that  the  2010  interpretation
was not arbitrary or capricious.3 

The  D. C.  Circuit  reversed.    Mortgage  Bankers  Assn.  v. 
Harris,  720  F. 3d  966  (2013).    Bound  to  the  rule  of  Para-
lyzed Veterans by precedent, the Court of Appeals rejected
the Government’s call to abandon the doctrine.  720 F. 3d., 
at  967,  n. 1.    In  the  court’s  view,  “[t]he  only  question” 
properly  before  it  was  whether  the  District  Court  had
erred  in  requiring  MBA  to  prove  that  it  relied  on  the 
Department’s prior interpretation.  Id., at 967.  Explaining
that reliance was not a required element of the Paralyzed 
Veterans doctrine, and noting the Department’s concession
that a prior, conflicting interpretation of the 2004 regula-
tions  existed,  the  D. C.  Circuit  concluded  that  the  2010 
Administrator’s Interpretation had to be vacated. 

We  granted  certiorari,  573  U. S.  __  (2014),  and  now 

reverse. 

II
  The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to the clear 
—————— 

2 Buck,  Henry,  and  Nickols  are  petitioners  in  No.  13–1052  and  re-

spondents in No. 13–1041. 

3 MBA did not challenge this aspect of the District Court’s decision on 

appeal.