Brennan v. Deel Motors, Inc.

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. SCOTUS: Chevron deferral at stake in Department of Labor case

    Ross RunkelJanuary 18, 2016

    Second, the court found that the DOL's interpretation wasreasonable. After all, service advisorsdo not personally sell cars and they do not personally service cars.Other courts:The 9th Circuit's decision is in conflict with decisions of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits, several district courts, and the Supreme Court of Montana.Walton v. Greenbrier Ford, Inc., 370 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2004);Brennan v. Deel Motors, Inc., 475 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1973);Brennan v. N. Bros. Ford, Inc., No. 40344, 1975 WL 1074 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 1975) (unpublished), aff’d sub.

  2. Ninth Circuit Finds Auto 'Service Advisors' Not Exempt Under FLSA

    Littler Mendelson, P.C.Benjamin EmmertApril 1, 2015

    In Navarro v. Encino Motorcars, LLC (9th Cir. Mar. 24 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed an issue of first impression in the Circuit: whether individuals who worked for automobile dealerships as “service advisors” were exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) overtime premium pay requirements. In reversing the district court’s decision, the Navarro court held the FLSA'sexemptionfor automobile dealership salesman, partsman, and mechanicsdid not apply to service advisors.This decision is significant because, in holding the exemption was inapplicable to service advisors, the Ninth Circuit declined to follow the lead of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits, which previously ruled auto dealership service advisors were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements in Walton v. Greenbrier Ford Inc., 370 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2004) and Brennan v. Deel Motors, Inc., 475 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1973). By creating a split between the Circuits, the decision introduced a new level of uncertainty as to how other Circuits may decide the issue.