Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Flint Avenue v. Department of Labor

Back to Case Finder

CASE SUMMARY

NCLA challenges DOL’s new rule that sets a salary standard for determining whether “white collar” employees are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime requirements. The new regulation prevents employers from claiming the exemption for millions of employees nationwide. This requires employers to reclassify their employees as hourly, preventing them from benefiting from flexible work arrangements. Flint Avenue competes with large corporations by offering its seven employees flexible work arrangements, including unlimited vacation. The rule would force the company to reclassify five of those employees as hourly, making such mutually beneficial arrangements no longer possible.

The FLSA exempts anyone “employed in a [white collar] capacity” from its minimum wage and overtime requirements, a definition based on their job’s function, not their pay. This allows many small businesses to compete against larger companies by offering flexible employment options where benefits are not solely based on hours worked. DOL’s new rule effectively erases that standard, prohibiting employees from being eligible for the exemption unless they are paid a fixed weekly salary of at least $1128, regardless of their role at the company. FLSA does not authorize DOL to impose a minimum weekly salary requirement on all white-collar employees in the guise of an exemption. Delegating that lawmaking power to DOL would violate the Vesting Clause in Article I of the Constitution, since FLSA contains no intelligible principle to guide DOL’s exercise of such authority.

The DOL’s new rule allows it to automatically raise the minimum salary level every three years, ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements and the federal statute that only authorizes exemptions “from time to time by regulation[.]” Acting Labor Secretary Su lacked authority to promulgate the rule, having unconstitutionally claimed secretarial powers for over a year without Senate confirmation.

OUR TEAM

Sheng Li
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement

August 7, 2024 | Read More

Order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Denying Motion for Stay or Preliminary Injunction

July 1, 2024 | Read More

Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority

June 30, 2024 | Read More

Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority

June 28, 2024 | Read More

Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Stay or Preliminary Injunction

June 28, 2024 | Read More

SEE 9 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Asks Court to End DOL’s Illegal Power Grab, Overturn Wage and Overtime Exemption Rule

August 8, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Asks Court to Stop DOL’s Illegal Undermining of Longstanding Wage and Overtime Exemption

June 12, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Suit Fights DOL’s Unlawful Undermining of Longstanding Wage and Overtime Exemption

June 4, 2024 | Read More

RELATED CASES
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • Aposhian v. Garland

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Guidance Abuse

    Agency guidance is easier to promulgate than formal rules and regulations, so agencies prefer to issue it. Such “guidance” supplies relatively informal indications of how an agency interprets rules and statutes. Although guidance is not permitted to bind Americans (unlike laws made by elected legislators), agencies treat guidance as binding and courts often fail to stop them.

    Case Active - January 7, 2019

    Agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

    View Case
  • Howard and Karen Baldwin v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed - February 24, 2020

    Agencies: Internal Revenue Service

    View Case
  • Marcus Broadway v. United States

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: U.S. Sentencing Commission

    View Case
  • Thomas H. Buffington v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Department of Veterans Affairs

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.