Christensen v. Harris County
Encyclopedia
Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) is a Supreme Court of the United States
case holding that a county's policy of requiring that employees schedule time off so that they do not accrue time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act
.
Harris County Sheriff's department, in an attempt to reduce overtime ependitures, forced deputies to use accumulated compensatory time before they reached the limit which would require overtime payments. The petitioners argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibited the forced use of "comp time." Respondents argued that the FLSA allows cashing out comp time and does not guarantee a minimum 40 hour work week.
The United States Department of Labor
had issued an opinion letter stating that the forced use of comp time violated the act.
The Court held that an opinion letter from the Department of Labor stating that an employer had to first get the employee to agree before requiring the employee to schedule time off did not receive Chevron deference
and instead should receive the less deferential standard of Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
The majority attempted to draw a bright line between formal agency documents (e.g., legislative rules) and less formal ones (e.g., opinion letters). Therefore, the opinion letter of the Department of Labor was not binding on the court. The court went on to state that there is nothing in the FLSA that prohibited the forced use of comp time. Judge Thomas delivered the 6-3 decision of the court in favor of Respondent Harris County.
Advocates:
Matthew D. Roberts argued the case for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of court.
Michael P. Fleming, Harris County Attorney, Houston, Texas, argued case for Respondent.
Michael T. Leibig argued case for Petitioner.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case holding that a county's policy of requiring that employees schedule time off so that they do not accrue time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act
Fair Labor Standards Act
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is a federal statute of the United States. The FLSA established a national minimum wage, guaranteed 'time-and-a-half' for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor," a term that is defined in the statute...
.
Harris County Sheriff's department, in an attempt to reduce overtime ependitures, forced deputies to use accumulated compensatory time before they reached the limit which would require overtime payments. The petitioners argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibited the forced use of "comp time." Respondents argued that the FLSA allows cashing out comp time and does not guarantee a minimum 40 hour work week.
The United States Department of Labor
United States Department of Labor
The United States Department of Labor is a Cabinet department of the United States government responsible for occupational safety, wage and hour standards, unemployment insurance benefits, re-employment services, and some economic statistics. Many U.S. states also have such departments. The...
had issued an opinion letter stating that the forced use of comp time violated the act.
The Court held that an opinion letter from the Department of Labor stating that an employer had to first get the employee to agree before requiring the employee to schedule time off did not receive Chevron deference
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers...
and instead should receive the less deferential standard of Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that an administrative agency's interpretative rules will be given deference according to their persuasiveness.-Background of the case:...
The majority attempted to draw a bright line between formal agency documents (e.g., legislative rules) and less formal ones (e.g., opinion letters). Therefore, the opinion letter of the Department of Labor was not binding on the court. The court went on to state that there is nothing in the FLSA that prohibited the forced use of comp time. Judge Thomas delivered the 6-3 decision of the court in favor of Respondent Harris County.
Advocates:
Matthew D. Roberts argued the case for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of court.
Michael P. Fleming, Harris County Attorney, Houston, Texas, argued case for Respondent.
Michael T. Leibig argued case for Petitioner.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 529
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
External links
- http://us.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1167 (Oyez website)