No. 24-785

Kristen Silloway, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-01-23
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: exemption-requirements fair-labor-standards-act helix-energy-solutions hourly-rate-employees overtime-pay salary-basis-test
Key Terms:
Arbitration ERISA Securities WageAndHour
Latest Conference: 2025-03-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether employees paid an hourly rate applied to the number of hours worked each pay period can satisfy the salary-basis requirement in 29 C.F.R. 541.602(a), and whether employees whose earnings are computed on an hourly basis and who receive additional compensation for hours worked need to satisfy the salary basis requirements in both 29 C.F.R. 541.604(a) and (b) to be exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay requirements

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

This case raises recurring, important questions regarding the proper application of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) salary basis test for exemption from overtime pay. The Ninth Circuit’s decision is in direct and apparent conflict with Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. 39, 55-56 (2023), where this Court ruled that 29 C.F.R. 541.602(a) and 29 C.F.R. 541.604(b) constitute two “non-overlapping paths to satisfy the salary-basis requirement,” with 29 C.F.R. 541.604(b) being the test applicable to hourly-rate em-ployees. The Ninth Circuit is the first court to hold that the express requirements of 29 C.F.R. 541.604(b) do not apply in the public sector and that, contrary to Helix, 29 C.F.R. 541.602(a) can be used to satisfy the salary-basis test even where employees are paid with regard to hours worked. In addition, while the em-ployees in this case received additional compensation for additional hours worked, the Ninth Circuit failed to apply the express requirements of 29 C.F.R. 541.604(a) of the salary basis test, which are separate and in addition to the requirements of 29 C.F.R. 541.604(b) and 29 C.F.R. 541.602(a). The questions presented are: Whether employees paid an hourly rate applied to the number of hours worked each pay period can satisfy the salary-basis requirement in 29 C.F.R. 541.602(a), which requires payment of a predeter-mined amount each pay period without regard to the number of hours worked. Whether employees whose earnings are computed on an hourly basis and who receive additional com-pensation for hours worked need to satisfy the salary ii basis requirements in both 29 C.F.R. 541.604(a) and (b) to be exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay re-quirements.

Docket Entries

2025-03-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/21/2025.
2025-02-24
Waiver of City and County of San Francisco of right to respond submitted.
2025-02-24
Waiver of right of respondent City and County of San Francisco to respond filed.
2025-01-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2025)

Attorneys

City and County of San Francisco
Ryan Paul McGinley-StempelRenne Public Law Group, Respondent
Ryan Paul McGinley-StempelRenne Public Law Group, Respondent
Kristen Silloway, et al.
David A. RosenfeldWeinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Petitioner
David A. RosenfeldWeinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Petitioner