Legal Document

529 U.S. 576120 S.Ct. 1655146 L.Ed.2d 621 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHRISTENSEN et al.v.HARRIS COUNTY al. CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1167. Argued February 23, 2000 Decided May 1, Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201(o), permits and their political subdivisions to compensate employees overtime work granting them compensatory lieu cash payment. If do not use accumulated time, employer must pay compensation under certain circumstances. §§207(o)(3)_(4). Fearing consequences having accrued Harris County adopted policy requiring its schedule off order reduce amount time. Petitioners, county deputy sheriffs, sued, claiming that FLSA does permit an compel employee absence agreement permitting so. District granted petitioners summary judgment entered declaratory violated FLSA. Fifth Circuit reversed, holding did speak issue thus prohibit from implementing policy. Held: Nothing or regulations prohibits public compelling Petitioners' claim §207(o)(5) implicitly compelled unpersuasive. proposition when statute limits thing particular mode, includes negative any other Raleigh Gaston R. Co. Reid, 13 Wall. 269, 270, resolve case petitioners' favor. Section 207(o)(5) provides who requests permitted so unless employer's operations would unduly disrupted. inference drawn only may deny request reason than provided §207(o)(5). simply ensures receive some timely benefit work. FLSA's nearby provisions reflect similar concern. At bottom, best reading liquidation time; says nothing about restricting efforts require Because silent on because county's entirely compatible §207(o)(5), cannot, §216(b) requires, prove §207. Two features support interpretation: Employers are decrease number hours work, employers also out paying his regular hourly wage each hour accrued. merely involves doing both these steps once. A Department letter taking position if agreed advance such practice entitled deference Chevron A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837. Interpretations those letters-like interpretations contained statements, agency manuals, enforcement guidelines, all which lack force law-do warrant Chevron-style deference. They "entitled respect," extent they persuasive, Skidmore Swift 323 134, 140, here. apply interpretation regulation, Labor's regulation even arguably requires included agreement. And agency's warranted Auer Robbins, 519 452, 461, regulation's language ambiguous, Pp. 5_12. 158 F.3d 241, affirmed. Thomas, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, C. O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, JJ., joined, Scalia, joined except Part III. filed concurring opinion. judgment. Stevens, dissenting opinion, Ginsburg Breyer, joined. Ginsburg, Opinion 1 NOTICE: This subject formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Decisions, Supreme States, Washington, D. 20543, typographical errors, corrections made goes press. 98_1167 2 EDWARD CHRISTENSEN, al., PETITIONERSv.HARRIS 3 ON WRIT 4 [May 2000] 5 Justice Thomas Court. 6 Under 52 Stat. 1060, amended, 201 seq. (1994 ed. Supp. III), "comp time," entitles take full pay. §207(o). obligated fiscal Employees Sheriff's Appeals rejected claim. Finding we affirm. 7 * 8 generally excess 40 per week compensated rate less times wage. §207(a)(1). Although requirement initially public-sector employers, Congress amended constraints, first limited basis, see Amendments 1966, Pub. L. 89_601, §102(b), 80 831 (extending categories state local employees), then more broadly, 1974, 93_259, §§6(a)(1)_(2), 88 58_59 employees, save elected officials staffs). subdivisions, however, feel latter extension until our decision Garcia San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 528 (1985), overruled National League Cities Usery, 426 833 (1976), could constitutionally restrain traditional governmental functions. 9 In months following Garcia, acted mitigate effects applying passing 1985, 99_150, 99 787. Moreau Klevenhagen, 508 22, 26 (1993). Those amendments every worked. 207(o)(1). To provide form compensation, arrive understanding instead compensation.1 §207(o)(2); CFR 553.23 (1999). 10 expressly regulates aspects accrual preservation For example, honor employee's within "reasonable period" request, long "unduly disrupt" operations. §207(o)(5); 553.25 caps accrue. After reaches maximum, additional §207(o)(3)(A). addition, cancel "cash out" unused §207(o)(3)(B); 553.26(a) payment remaining upon termination employment. §207(o)(4). B 11 Petitioners 127 sheriffs employed respondents County, Texas, sheriff, Tommy B. (collectively, County). It undisputed individually accept cash, overtime. 12 As became concerned lacked resources monetary worked after reaching statutory cap left jobs sizable reserves result, began looking way wrote Wage Hour Division, asking "whether Sheriff non-exempt time." Brief 18_19. Acting Administrator Division replied: "[I]t nonexempt directed prior specifically provision _ . 14 "Absent agreement, neither nor Letter Dept. Labor, Div. (Sept. 14, 1992), 1992 WL 845100 (Opinion Letter). 15 receiving letter, implemented employees' supervisor sets maximum accumulated. When stock approaches advised asked voluntarily, specified times. 16 violates §207(o)(5)-which reasonably accommodate time-provides exclusive means utilizing method. agreed, entering 945 F. 1067 (SD Tex. 1996). 241 (1998). Judge Dennis concurred dissented part, concluding arrangement advance. Id., 247_251. We certiorari Courts divided issue.2 __ II 17 Both parties, amicus curiae, concede State subdivision thereof utilize contend authorizing use.3 Title provides: 18 "An 19 "(A) , 20 "(B) 21 "shall reasonable period making disrupt agency." 22 rely canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius, contending express grant control limitation regarding undue disruptions workplace operations, implies methods spending precluded.4 23 find "[w]hen mode." 270 (1872). But "thing done" defined expenditure have it. Instead, properly read minimal guarantee able make he such, proper not, least canon's application telling benefits scheduling 24 words, viewed context overall scheme, better setting forth method can used, up safeguard ensure working guarantees that, very minimum, get (i.e., pay) precisely concern over ensuring "liquidate" Secretary identified her own governing §207(o)(5): 25 "Compensatory cannot used avoid compensation. An right earned coerced realistically good faith expect 553.25(b) confirmed §207(o)(3)(A) workers accrue 240 480 depending nature job. §207(o)(2)(B) (conditioning ability accruing limits). 207(o)(3)(A) helps amounts use. all, need §207(o)(3)(A)'s protection; free exchanging payment, §207(o)(3)(B), halting Thus, §207(o)(3)(A), like reflects exchange Moreover, view, exception enacted wake become nullity refuse reach maximums accrual. convert shield into sword, forcing providing 27 think imposes restriction so; County's required 216(b), 28 Our §207(o)(5)-one time-finds two First, remain tell afternoon, day, entire week. Cf. Barrentine Arkansas&nbhyph; Best Freight System, 450 728, 739 (1981) ("[T]he was designed covered protected evil overwork _" (internal quotation marks emphasis omitted)). Second, explicitly 553.27(a) money paid wages challenged little sense interpret combination unlawful independently lawful.5 III attempt conclusion should defer takes practice. Specifically, argue 837 (1984). Chevron, held court give effect containing ambiguous statute. 842_844. 30 Here, confront one arrived after, adjudication notice-and-comment rulemaking. See, e.g., Reno Koray, 515 50, 61 (1995) guideline, "subject rigors Administrative Procedur[e] Act, including notice comment," "some deference" omitted)); EEOC Arabian American Oil 499 244, 256_258 (1991) (interpretative guidelines deference); Martin Occupational Safety Health Review Comm'n, 144, 157 rules "not same norms derive exercise Secretary's delegated lawmaking powers"). K. Davis Pierce, Law Treatise §3.5 (3d 1994). formats letters respect" 140 (1944), "power persuade," ibid. supra, 256_258. explained above, unpersuasive case. 31 Of course, framework set regulation. address "[t]he [between employee] include preservation, use, cashing consistent [§207(o)]." 553.23(a)(2) (1999) (emphasis added). text itself indicates command permissive, mandatory. 32 Seeking overcome obvious meaning, asserts interpreting given 452 (1997). Auer, 461. Bowles Seminole Rock Sand 325 410 (1945). ambiguous. ambiguous-it plainly permissive. agency, guise create de facto new unwarranted. 33 34 noted, relevant pursuing siding petitioners, opined "it view exactly backwards. Unless adopting policy, show contains prohibition. 35 ordered. 36 concurring. 37 I join assumption foreclose allows limiting forced 38 J. 39 III, declines so-called "Skidmore deference," (1944). authoritative views anachronism, dating era declined (including interpretive regulations, opposed "legislative rules") effect. 259 (Scalia, judgment). former judicial attitude accounts 1946 Procedure exempted "interpretative rules" (since authoritative) requirements applicable rulemaking, 553(b)(A). 41 That came end watershed 837, 844 (1984), established principle "a substitute construction administrator agency."1 While fact involved rationale context: " ` power administrative administer congressionally created program necessarily formulation fill gap left, explicitly, Congress.' 843, quoting Morton Ruiz, 415 199, 231 (1974). Quite appropriately, therefore, accorded positions variety formats. INS Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 415, 425 (adjudication); NationsBank N. C., Variable Annuity Life Ins. 513 251, 256_257 (letter Comptroller Currency); Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation LTV Corp., 496 633, 647_648 (1990) (decision Corp. restore pension plan); Young Community Nutrition Institute, 476 U. S 974, 978_979 (1986) (Food Drug Administration's "longstanding statute," reflected no-action published Federal Register). 42 my action terms sheriff's department warrants represents Labor. appears single signed might alone persuade me occupies status. Solicitor General appearing action, brief, cosigned alone, without existence entitle What said involving applies equally, statute: 43 "Petitioners complain comes us legal brief; circumstances unworthy `post hoc rationalizatio[n]' advanced seeking defend past against attack, Bowen Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 204, 212 (1988). There suspect fair considered matter question." 462 44 nonetheless because, reasons seem 45 whom Breyer join, dissenting. 46 disagreement between parties concerns scope general rule, appropriate begin correct identification rule. rule gives payable whether private sector economy sector. 206 207 III). exception, arrives type cash. §207(o); statute, impose accordance stumbles treats §207's conditional though were begins correctly asserting "compensate `comp time,' pay." Ante, 1. bottom second page, acknowledges what appeared really basic 47 judgment, lawfully time" affected critical importance answering question using noncash imposed consent. consent condition qualify seems clear encompass used. 48 effort addressing point, mistakenly characterizes central argument turning alterius.1 According curiae solely employers' wait it, "all precluded." 6. concludes help prescribed (and "things" excluded) allowed rather open-ended promise choose (subject limitation) how spend Ibid. 49 description debate misses primary thrust position. implies, afford essentially unlimited comp statute; point availability come terms. respect here unilaterally expenditure. 50 likewise mistaken insistence reading, "would nullity" "forc[e] 8. contrary, "forced" either abide arrangements comply 51 points out, ante, 3, 7, absent thereby readily avoiding Neither somehow assumed implied term agreements. contemplated well requiring, once reached, preferred form-cash-for limit. Finally, significance present Government responsible statute's shares meaning. Indeed, response direct posed decided-agency advice notwithstanding-to implement forced-use nonetheless. explained: 53 "[A] provision, knowingly voluntarily 54 Absent 845100. 55 Department, emphasized, suggest policies forbidden regulations. Rather, down regulatory pursued according parties' there believe Department's anything thoroughly consistently observed, unquestionably 56 merits respect. (1944).2 57 end, understand why difficult employment antecedent all. enjoy substantial bargaining negotiations employees; agreements informal wish. 553.23(c) And, said, retain leave simple step is, years ago suggested pursue here, achieve outcome along claimed wants. 58 respectfully dissent. 59 joins, 60 Scalia brief "authoritative" (opinion object majority's citing 134 instead. disagree Scalia's statement calls "an anachronism." courts attention expert where represent "specialized experience," U.S., 139, constitute authority. "rulings, opinions of" "while controlling authority, body experience informed litigants resort guidance." 140; (1991). Jackson possess control." Skidmore, 140. 62 change. focused additional, separate deferring determinations, namely, had authority determinations. 843_844. Chevron-type inapplicable-e.g., doubt actually intended delegate (an "ambiguity" presumptively resolution)-I retains vitality. statutes serve human purposes called being, continue cases experienced-based agencies. 63 agree Stevens "thoroughly observed," views, particularly technical one, "meri[t] respect." (dissenting opinion). forth, 1_4, eminently reasonable, hence through Chevron's lens, Skidmore's, both. Notes 64 Such formally reached memorialized writing, informally, works knowing rewards 553.23(c)(1) 65 2. Compare, Collins Lobdell, 188 1124, 1129_1130 (CA9 1999) (upholding use), Heaton Moore, 1176, 1180_1181 (CA8 1994) (striking cert. denied sub nom. Schriro Heaton, 1104 (1995). 66 3. "[w]hether governed 1938, 207(o), may, preexisting ___ decide exists 67 4. never argument. post, 2, n. fail arguments Latin, briefs reveals reliance canon. Amicus Curiae ("Congress circumstance measure control: allow `unduly disrupt' 207(o)(5). unilateral respects well, presumably provided"); Reply 4_6 (contending reducing used). 68 5. dispute fact, endorses half (employer time). claims "stumbl[e]" failing identify "the rule" cash." Post, §207(a)'s supplanted. assert analogy. treated bank-that employee. analogy wholly inapt grants significant buy Additionally, §207(o)(5)(B); 553.25(d) therefore directly undermined unambiguous 69 comprehend Breyer's contention, opinion), deference-that special administering statute-is anachronism "circumstances inapplicable." inapplicable three reasons: (1) unambiguous, room interpretation; (2) personnel (3) authoritative, official agency. All preclude well. specific example inapplicability posits, viz., "where agency," assume finding ask invoke deference, ambiguity resolved establishes presumption ambiguities (within bounds interpretation) implausibility Congress's leaving highly unaddressed "delegating" resolution agency) assuredly factors determining ambiguity, MCI Telecommunications Telephone Telegraph 512 218, (1994), attach. 70 noted relies sole mention refer sentence Eighth 1176 (1994) (rejecting compelled-use effect), denied, 71 add fully comments 1-2.

Classification Label: 6