A recent Supreme Court decision has changed the rules about how your employer can classify workers as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In EMD Sales v. Carrera, the Supreme Court ruled employers now face a lower standard of proof when claiming employees are exempt from overtime pay.

This shift could directly affect whether you receive overtime pay, making it essential to understand your rights and how this ruling may impact your paycheck.

How EMD Sales Changes the Burden of Proof

In EMD Sales v. Carrera, sales representatives sued their employer, arguing they were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA’s “outside sales” exemption. This exemption applies to employees whose primary duties involve making sales or obtaining contracts, and who customarily work outside of their employer’s place of business.

The employees in this case contended that they were owed overtime pay because they did not meet the legal criteria for the exemption. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in their favor, stating that the employer failed to prove the exemption by “clear and convincing evidence.” The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, agreeing that a higher standard should apply when employers claim an exemption under the FLSA.

The employer then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the correct burden of proof should be the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is commonly used in civil cases.

The Supreme Court unanimously sided with the employer. The Court clarified that unless a law explicitly requires a heightened standard of proof, the default standard in civil litigation—preponderance of the evidence—should apply. The justices noted that other workplace laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, also follow this standard and that applying a stricter rule in FLSA cases would be inconsistent with broader legal principles.

This decision reverses the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and sets a precedent that will impact how courts evaluate exemption claims moving forward. Employers now have a clearer legal framework when defending classification decisions, reducing the uncertainty created by inconsistent lower court rulings.

How the Decision Impacts Your Overtime Rights

The recent Supreme Court ruling in EMD Sales v. Carrera significantly impacts your rights as an employee regarding overtime pay. Previously, employers had to meet a higher burden of proof when classifying workers as exempt from overtime laws. Now, the Supreme Court has reduced this burden, requiring only that employers show it's "more likely than not" that an exemption from overtime applies to an employee.

For you, this means it's easier for employers to claim you're exempt from overtime, potentially limiting your earnings. If your job is classified under exemptions like "outside sales," administrative roles, or managerial positions, your employer now faces a simpler standard to justify denying you overtime pay. While this doesn't automatically mean you will lose overtime rights, it underscores the importance of understanding your own job classification clearly.

Despite this ruling, the law still requires your job duties—not just your title—to fit exemption criteria. Your actual responsibilities matter more than your official job title. Even if your employer claims you're exempt, they must still prove your daily tasks align with those exemptions. Therefore, accurately recording your tasks, hours, and duties is crucial.

Just because your employer claims you're exempt doesn't mean you actually are. It's common for businesses to incorrectly classify employees as exempt based on job titles alone. To challenge this, you'll need to demonstrate your actual daily responsibilities and how they differ from the exemption's legal definition.

How to Protect Your Rights to Overtime Pay

To safeguard your overtime rights, follow these essential steps.

1. Track Your Work Hours Carefully: Maintain detailed records of your daily hours, including breaks and overtime. Accurate documentation can be your strongest defense if you ever need to dispute your overtime status.
2. Understand Your Job Duties Clearly: Overtime exemptions are based on specific job duties, not job titles. Familiarize yourself with the exact criteria of your exemption classification, and note any discrepancies between your actual work and what your employer claims.
3. Speak Up Promptly if You Suspect Misclassification: If you suspect you've been misclassified, discuss your concerns directly with HR or your supervisor. Often, clarifying your job duties or pointing out potential errors early can resolve issues.
4. Consult with an Employment Attorney if Needed: Consulting with an employment attorney is also often advisable. Consulting with an employment attorney before you discuss your concerns with your employer can help you determine the validity of your claim before you make a complaint to your employer, and also help you understand the most effective way to communicate your concerns to your employer in accordance with the law. If you are not able to resolve things directly with your employer, then an employment attorney can help you pursue legal remedies in court or with governmental agencies in an effort to obtain the wages that you earned, and the damages to which you are entitled. Attorneys experienced with wage and hour disputes can advise you on potential next steps, such as filing a complaint with the Department of Labor or pursuing legal action.

Protect Your Overtime Rights with Experienced Legal Help

If you suspect you've been misclassified as exempt or denied rightful overtime pay, our attorneys at Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC are here to advocate for your rights. Wage and hour laws are complex, and employers don't always follow them correctly. Our experienced employment law team can assess your situation, clarify your rights, and help you pursue compensation you're entitled to.

Don't let your employer's misclassification cost you. Call 860-246-2466 or contact us online today to ensure your rights and your paycheck are fully protected.