Encino Motorcars, LLC V. Navarro Et Al: A Case Study
The case of Encino Motorcars, LLC v Navarro Et Al is a perfect example of an employer declining to issue of overtime pay to an employee. This case brought different points of view to the overtime pay by various regulatory bodies. The Fair Labor Standards Act (F.L.S.A), The U.S Department of Labor, District Court, the Ninth Circuit and The Supreme Court of the United States. There have been a no. of exercised authorities leading to view promulgations from the original amendment. The case is still an active case.
Supporting Arguments
The Fair Labor Standards Act and the Congress in 1966 both shared the enacted exemption of paying the overtime dues. To all sales associates who worked more than forty hours a week. They argued that the overtime compensation was a right to any salesperson in a covered dealership. …show more content…
It defines a salesperson as any employee whose work is to sell, contract and obtain orders. In 2011, the department further marginalized the salesmen by inflicting more thin ends on their petitions. They never included exemptions.
Legal principles relied upon by the court
The Ninth Circuit reversed the motion granted by the District Court. Deferring under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.467-U.S-837. The motion cited that service advisors are not covered by the exemption. In The United States v. Media Corp. 533-U.S-218, it went on to state that the Chevron deference was not warranted by regulation. And that those were the errors they made while issuing that rule.
Implications
The ruling by the Supreme Court exempted service advisors as part of the FLSA’s terms and spirits (DOL, 2016). Hector Navarro had therefore lost the case to Encino. It affected all sales associates and service provider from claiming overtime wages. They remain to be paid on the commission basis only.
Precedents on Labor Practices
Supporting Arguments
The Fair Labor Standards Act and the Congress in 1966 both shared the enacted exemption of paying the overtime dues. To all sales associates who worked more than forty hours a week. They argued that the overtime compensation was a right to any salesperson in a covered dealership. …show more content…
It defines a salesperson as any employee whose work is to sell, contract and obtain orders. In 2011, the department further marginalized the salesmen by inflicting more thin ends on their petitions. They never included exemptions.
Legal principles relied upon by the court
The Ninth Circuit reversed the motion granted by the District Court. Deferring under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.467-U.S-837. The motion cited that service advisors are not covered by the exemption. In The United States v. Media Corp. 533-U.S-218, it went on to state that the Chevron deference was not warranted by regulation. And that those were the errors they made while issuing that rule.
Implications
The ruling by the Supreme Court exempted service advisors as part of the FLSA’s terms and spirits (DOL, 2016). Hector Navarro had therefore lost the case to Encino. It affected all sales associates and service provider from claiming overtime wages. They remain to be paid on the commission basis only.
Precedents on Labor Practices