Document: 519 U.S. 452117 S.Ct. 905137 L.Ed.2d 79 Francis Bernard AUER, et al., Petitioners,v.David A. ROBBINS, al. No. 95-897. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 10, 1996. Decided Feb. 19, 1997. Syllabus * Petitioners, St. Louis police sergeants and a lieutenant, sued respondent commissioners for overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 (FLSA). Respondents argued that petitioners were "bona fide executive, administrative, or professional'' employees exempted from requirements by 29 U.S.C. §213(a)(1). Under Secretary Labor's regulations, exemption applies to paid specified minimum amount on "salary basis,'' which requires "compensation . not [be] subject reduction because variations in quality quantity work performed.'' Petitioners claimed they did meet this test because, terms Police Department Manual, their compensation could theoretically be reduced (though was department's general practice) variety disciplinary infractions related "quality quantity'' work. Both District Eighth Circuit disagreed with assertion, holding salary-basis satisfied as all petitioners. Held: 1.The "no deductions'' element reflects permissible reading FLSA it public-sector employees. It is apparent Secretary's interpretation §213(a)(1) rendered unreasonable, applied employees, absence other (non-salary-reduction) means discipline, peculiar needs "quasi military'' law-enforcement organizations. The approach must therefore sustained, given §213(a)(1)'s grant broad authority "defin[e] delimi[t]'' statutory exemption's scope. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 842-843, 104 2778, 2781-2782, 81 694. Respondents' procedural objection failure amend disciplinary-deduction rule wake Garcia San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 528, 105 1005, 83 1016, cannot raised first instance lawsuit, but presented initially petition amendatory rulemaking Administrative Procedure Act, 5 §553(e). Pp. ___-___. 2.The has reasonably interpreted met when an employee's may "as practical matter'' adjusted ways inconsistent test. standard violated, says, if there either actual practice making deductions employment policy creates "significant likelihood'' them. Because regulation's critical phrase "subject to'' comfortably bears meaning assigns, his own "plainly erroneous,'' thus controlling. Robertson Methow Valley Citizens 490 332, 359, 109 1835, 1850, 351. unworthy deference fact set forth amicus brief; position adopted response litigation, no reason suspect does reflect fair considered judgment. Nor requiring exemptions narrowly construed against employers apply here; governs judicial statutes limit power resolve ambiguities regulations. 3.The regulations entitle preserve exempt status who have been subjected reimbursing those promising comply future, so long question inadvertent made reasons than lack ___. 65 F.3d 702 (C.A.8 1995), affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Michael T. Leibig, Washington, DC, Irving L. Gornstein, curiae, special leave John B. Renick, Louis, MO, respondents. Justice SCALIA 1 (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, amended, §§201 seq., exempts requirements. This case presents whether basis'' determining statute We also consider deny employee salaried (and him pay) 2 are lieutenant employed Department. They brought suit 1988 respondents, members Board Commissioners, seeking payment owed §7(a)(1) FLSA, §207(a)(1). entitled such came within provided 3 promulgated Secretary, one requirement earn basis.'' C.F.R. §§541.1(f), 541.2(e), 541.3(e) (1996). According " [a]n will "on salary basis' agreement he regularly receives each period weekly, less frequent basis, predetermined constituting part compensation, §541.118(a). contended performed. §213(a)(1): duties professional nature. §§541.1(a)-(e), 541.2(a)-(d), 541.3(a)-(d). 4 found basis most, though all, criterion. Appeals affirmed reversed part, both 1995). granted certiorari. 518 ____, 116 2545, 135 1066 (1996).1 II grants scope chosen approach, turn performed,'' §541.118(a) regulation goes carve out exception [p]enalties imposed safety rules major significance,'' §541.118(a)(5), clear embraces reductions violations. view whose do deserve matter true "executive, "disciplined'' piecemeal pay, terminated, demoted, restricted assignments. 6 state local 1940. §203(d) (1940 ed.); Fed.Reg. 4077 (1940) (salary-basis test). In 1974 Congress extended coverage virtually Pub.L. 93-259, §6, 88 58-62, 1985 we held exercise consistent Tenth Amendment, 1016 (1985) (overruling National League Cities Usery, 426 833, 96 2465, 49 245 (1976)). existed largely its present form since 1954, see 19 4405 (1954), expressly applicable §§553.2(b), 553.32(c) 7 concede validly public sector, raise any challenge reliance contend, however, invalid them unreasonable exemption. That so, say, ability adjust employees' pay-even administrative pay-as enforcing compliance necessary component effective government. context, fewer alternatives available. 8 "directly spoken precise at issue,'' sustain "based construction statute.'' 694 (1984). While respondents' objections would perhaps support different application conclude compel it. differently situated regard disciplining require wholesale revision time-tested simply said unreasonable. agree Seventh "principle administration drawn our attention makes imperative'' impose individuals genuine capacities. Mueller Reich, 54 438, 442 (C.A.7 cert. pending, 95-586. 9 appeal nature agencies use full range tools even relatively senior personnel essential, maintaining control discipline organizations human lives line daily. far clear, only deduction, some discipline-for example, placing offending officer duties-will effect. entrusts matters judgment federal courts, say personnel. B 10 more fundamental respondents one: failed give adequate consideration really sense sector. amici make claim specific: revisit decision "arbitrary'' "capricious'' violation (APA), §706(2)(A). 11 certainly raises distinct issues warrant formal consideration; much suggested veritable flood post-Garcia litigation area, see, e.g., Carpenter Denver, 82 353 (C.A.10 1996), 95-2088; Bankston Illinois, 60 1249 1995); Shockley Newport News, 997 F.2d 18 (C.A.4 1993); Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, Local 134 Atlanta, 920 800 (C.A.11 1991). But complaints about suit. A court asked parties disregard agency contrary substantive law, appears record issued prerequisites, "notice comment'' APA, §553. where, here, substantively unlawful, violates prerequisite, rather conduct (which might well resulted change), aside agency's action prior relief addressed itself. proper procedure pursuit grievance explicitly APA: rulemaking, §553(e), denial justified statement reasons, §555(e), can appealed §§702, 706. III 12 primary issue unleashed whether, test, whenever exists theoretical possibility deductions, something suggest actually vulnerable having reduced. effect argue close former view; contend Manual nominally subjects department sanctions includes single sergeant hence nonexempt FLSA.2 13 rejected petitioners' saying [t]he mere improper deduction defeat status'' exists. F.3d, 710-711. Appeals' view, "one-time incident'' taken "unique circumstances'' Id., 711. —(In question, had violated residency rule, agreed alternative termination employment.) earlier ruling Circuit, McDonnell Omaha, 999 293, 296-297 (1993), denied, 510 1163, 114 1188, 127 538 (1994), Eleventh case, supra, 805. Other Circuits requirement, Yourman Dinkins, 84 655, 656 (C.A.2 96-152; 359-360; 1253; Kinney Columbia, 994 6, 10-11 (C.A.D.C.1993); Abshire County Kern, 908 483, 486-488 (C.A.9 1990), 498 1068, 111 785, 112 848 (1991); else face vagueness ambiguity governing policy, Michigan Assn. Governmental Employees Dept. Corrections, 992 82, 86 (C.A.6 1993). 14 Labor, brief filed request Court, interprets covered permits matter.'' met, deductions. rejects wooden particularized policy-one "effectively communicates'' circumstances. avoids imposition massive unanticipated liability (including substantial liquidated damages, 12) situations vague broadly worded whole "significantly likely'' invoked 15 creature is, jurisprudence, controlling unless ""plainly erroneous regulation.''' 351 (1989) (quoting Bowles Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 410, 414, 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945)). deferential easily here. assigns. American Heritage Dictionary 1788 (3d ed.1992) (def. 2: defining mean "prone; disposed''; giving example "a child colds''); Webster's New International 2509 (2d ed.1950) 3: [e]xposed; liable; prone; country extreme heat''). 16 usefully illustrated reference case. rely contained section lists total 58 possible violations specifies penalties associated each. All manual, involve pay. enough render manual communicate'' anticipated punishment category, perfectly every aspect without drawing inference sort. If available solely petitioners, different; unquestionably expressed availability latter. No likelihood sanction's being Nor, established one-time sergeant's unusual 17 complain comes us legal not, circumstances deference. "post hoc rationalizatio[n]'' advanced defend past attack, Bowen Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 204, 212, 468, 474, 102 493 (1988). There question. contravenes "narrowly employers'' withheld except persons unmistakably spirit.'' Arnold Ben Kanowsky, 361 388, 392, 80 453, 456, 393 (1960). limitation construe little sense, free write wishes, limits statute. IV One small remains unresolved: upon Sergeant Guzy, provide test-such Guzy's pay-are indicating "there intention [not] during entire made.'' §541.118(a)(6) Conversely, "where permitted [the test] inadvertent, work, lost employer reimburses promises future.'' Ibid. initial condition latter provision enables take corrective action) here inadvertent. enough, plain language sets "inadverten[ce]'' "made work'' grounds permitting action. unavailable Guzy yet reimbursed residency-based deduction; reimbursement immediately discovery made. regulation, address timing reimbursement, informs interpret immediate payment. complying §541.118(a)(6). 20 *** 21 argued, finally, carry affirmative burden establishing Since, argument inadequately preserved proceedings, Adickes S.H. Kress 398 144, 147, n. 2, 90 1598, 1602, 26 142 (1970). 22 ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. lacked jurisdiction over virtue Amendment. share immunity Missouri. Governor appoints four Board's five members, Mo.Rev.Stat. §84.030 City responsible financial liabilities, §84.210, State's direction respect. "arm State'' Amendment purposes. Hess Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 30, 47-51, 115 394, 404-406, 130 (1994); Lake Country Estates, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 391, 401-402, 99 1171, 1177, 59 401 (1979). additional portions cite.

Category: 6