Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each year is entitled to overtime pay
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Respondent was a supervisor on Helix’s offshore vessels and was compensated commensurate with his high-ranking position. Every two weeks, Helix paid Respondent at least $963 for each day that he worked. Tn all, Respondent earned $248,053 in 2015, $218,863 in 2016, and $143,680 in the eight months he worked for Helix in 2017. After his performance-related release, Respondent sued Helix under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), claiming that he was also entitled to substantially more in retroactive overtime pay. The FLSA sensibly exempts many highly compensated supervisors from the Act’s overtime requirements. Specifically, employees who perform executive duties, earn at least $100,000 per year, and receive at least $455 per week paid on a salary basis are “deemed exempt.” 29 C.F.R. §541.601(a). It is undisputed that Respondent performed executive duties and met the annual earnings threshold. Nevertheless, a sharply divided en banc Fifth Circuit ruled that Respondent was non-exempt and entitled to retroactive overtime pay because he was paid based on a daily rate, not a weekly rate, even though his daily rate was more than twice the weekly minimum. The majority reached that counterintuitive conclusion only by applying a separate provision, 29 C.F.R. §541.604, that the First and Second Circuits have both held inapplicable when determining whether highly compensated employees are exempt. The question presented is: Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each year is entitled to overtime pay because the standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 ii C.F.R. §541.601 remains subject to the detailed requirements of 29 C.F.R. §541.604 when determining whether highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the FLSA’s__ overtime-pay requirements.
2023-02-22
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-984_j426.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Kavanaugh, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Alito, J., joined.
2022-10-12
Argued. For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va. For respondent: Edwin Sullivan, Houston, Tex.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
2022-09-30
Reply of petitioners Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-28
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.
2022-09-07
Brief amicus curiae of Massachusetts Nurses Association filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-07
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-07
Brief amicus curiae of National Nurses United filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-07
Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-07
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.
2022-08-31
Brief of respondent Michael J. Hewitt filed. (Distributed)
2022-07-15
Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
2022-07-15
Brief amici curiae of Texas Oil and Gas Association, Inc., et al. filed.
2022-07-15
Brief amici curiae of States of Mississippi, et al. filed.
2022-07-13
Brief amicus curiae of Independent Petroleum Association of America filed.
2022-07-08
Brief of petitioners Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. filed.
2022-07-08
Joint appendix filed (statement of cost filed.)
2022-06-23
The record from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of Texas (Houston) has been electronically filed.
2022-06-22
The record from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.
2022-06-22
Record requested from the 5th Circuit.
2022-06-14
ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, October, 12, 2022.
2022-06-07
May 26, 2022 motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 8, 2022. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 31, 2022.
2022-05-26
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
2022-05-06
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
2022-04-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
2022-04-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/22/2022.
2022-04-05
Reply of petitioners Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-03-21
Brief of respondent Michael J. Hewitt in opposition filed.
2022-02-18
Response Requested. (Due March 21, 2022)
2022-02-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
2022-02-10
Brief amici curiae of Mississippi, et al. filed.
2022-02-10
Brief amici curiae of Independent Petroleum Association of America and Offshore Operators Committee filed.
2022-02-09
Brief amici curiae of Texas Oil and Gas Association, Inc. and The American Petroleum Institute filed.
2022-02-09
Waiver of right of respondent Michael J. Hewitt to respond filed.
2022-02-07
Letter of February 7, 2022 pertaining to amicus briefs, received from counsel for the petiitoners.
2022-01-27
Letter of January 25, 2022 pertaining to the corporate discosure statement, received from counsel for the petiitoners.
2022-01-25
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al.
2022-01-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 10, 2022)