Opinion ID: 3011219
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: FLSA S 207(e)(4) is ambiguous

Text: It is well-settled that if a statute unambiguously expresses Congress's intent, courts must give effect to that intent. See, e.g., FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 1297 (2000) (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984)). RHD argues S 207(e)(4) is clear and unambiguous, because although the statute does not define bona fide, that term has an ordinary usage. Relying on Black's Law Dictionary and Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, RHD contends bonafide means good faith. It argues there is nothing to suggest its _________________________________________________________________ 10. Because we will remand for the District Court to examine the administrative provision under the proper deference standard, we need not reach RHD's final argument that the Fairshare Plan conforms with the dictates of S 778.215(a)(5). 14 Fairshare Plan is anything but a good faith attempt to provide its employees with benefits. Assuming arguendo that bona fide does not render S 207(e)(4) ambiguous, we cannot say the same of the remainder of the provision. As noted, the section allows exclusion of contributions to plans that provide old-age, retirement, life, accident, or health insurance, or similar benefits for employees. 29 U.S.C. S 207(e)(4). The or similar benefits language is imprecise by its own terms and capable of ambiguity. Therefore, we hold the plain language of S 207(e)(4) does not provide sufficient guidance to govern the application of the statute in this case.