No. 24-626

F.W. Webb Company v. Vincent N. Micone, III, Acting Secretary, Department of Labor

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2024-12-06
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-exemption employment-law fair-labor-standards-act judicial-interpretation labor-regulations regulatory-compliance
Key Terms:
Arbitration ERISA WageAndHour
Latest Conference: 2025-03-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the First Circuit's 'relational analysis' improperly determines FLSA administrative exemption by focusing on employer's business instead of employee's duties

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates an overtime exemption for “administrative” employees as that term is “defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary” of Labor. 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). The Secretary's published regulations make that exemption employee-specific and fact-intensive; it turns on “the type of work performed by the employee.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.201; see also, eg., id. § 541.700(a) (“Determination of an employee’s primary duty must be based on all the facts in a particular case.”). The First Circuit, however, instead applies an extratextual test called the “relational analysis,” which makes the employer’s business—rather than the nature of the employee’s duties as such—the dispositive factor in determining the applicability of the exemption. The question presented is whether this judicially created “relational analysis” can be used to decide the FLSA’s administrative exemption, in contravention of the Secretary’s regulations.

Docket Entries

2025-03-10
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/7/2025.
2025-02-19
Reply of F.W. Webb Company submitted.
2025-02-19
2025-02-05
Brief of Su, Julie A. in opposition submitted.
2025-02-05
Brief of respondent Vincent N. Micone III in opposition filed.
2024-12-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 5, 2025.
2024-12-12
Motion of Su, Julie A. for an extension of time submitted.
2024-12-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 6, 2025 to February 5, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-12-03

Attorneys

F.W. Webb Company
Paul Whitfield HughesMcDermott Will & Emery, Petitioner
Paul Whitfield HughesMcDermott Will & Emery, Petitioner
Su, Julie A.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent