Opinion ID: 773633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Auer v. Robbins

Text: 3 In Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), the Supreme Court addressed the proper application of this salary basis test to employees of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department who sought overtime wages under the FLSA. Id. at 455. The employees claimed their pay was subject to reduction for disciplinary infractions because the department manual provided for partial week suspensions, even though there had been only one instance in which a purportedly salaried employee's pay was so reduced. Id. at 462. 4 At the Court's request, the Secretary of Labor filed an amicus brief regarding its interpretation of the salary basis regulation. Id. at 461. The Secretary took the position that an employer cannot assert overtime exempt status whenemployees are covered by a policy that permits disciplinary or other deductions in pay `as a practical matter.'  Id. This test is satisfied if there is (1) an actual practice of making such deductions or (2) an employment policy that creates a `significant likelihood' of such deductions. Id. In the absence of actual deductions, a clear policy is required that `effectively communicates' that deductions will be made in specific circumstances. Id. 5 In Auer, there had been only one actual deduction under what the Court called unusual circumstances.  Id. at 462. Therefore the Court focused on the policy prong of the test, and determined that the police department manual did not effectively communicate that pay deductions were likely for similarly situated employees. Id. 6 The employees here are governed by the Los Angeles City Civil Service Commission's Guide to Disciplinary Standards. The guide lists various offenses and sets forth suggested actions for the first, second and third offenses. Suspensions are suggested for some offenses, including ones that are not related to violations of major safety rules. The guide does not require suspension for certain offenses and does not distinguish between salaried and hourly employees. On March 12, 1993, the Mayor of Los Angeles issued a directive to the heads of all City departments, prohibiting the suspension of any exempt employee, whose salary is above the time and one-half cap . . . for less than a workweek, unless such discipline is related to a major violation of a safety rule. Reviewing the City's disciplinary guide in light of Auer, the district court concluded that there was not an employment policy which created a significant likelihood of disciplinary deductions. This ruling has not been appealed. 7