Workers’ Compensation

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

Issues

Must an employee making over $200,000 each year satisfy the “extras regulation” requirements in 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 to be a “highly compensated employee” exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA?

This case asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether highly compensated white-collar employees must meet the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 to be exempt from overtime pay. To be exempt from overtime pay, 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 requires that employees receive certain minimum weekly guarantees and that a reasonable relationship exist between the guaranteed amount and amount actually earned. Helix argues that incorporating 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 into the Fair Labor Standards Act’s highly compensated employee exception goes against the text and regulatory history of the highly compensated employee exemption regulation and unnecessarily complicates the exemption process. Hewitt counters that 29 C.F.R § 541.604 has been embraced in the text and practice of highly compensated employee exemption regulation and that it encourages employers to improve welfare and increase job slots. The outcome of this case has significant implications for the oil, gas, and nursing industries, as well as their employees’ job markets.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each year is entitled to overtime pay because the standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 remains subject to the detailed requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 when determining whether highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirements.

Petitioners Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. and Helix Well Ops, Inc. (collectively “Helix”) provide offshore oil and gas well intervention services. Hewitt v. Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc. at 1. Helix employed Respondent Michael Hewitt for two years as a Toolpusher. Id. at 2. Hewitt, like most Toolpushers, typically worked and lived on an offshore oil rig for twenty-eight-day periods during offshore trips for Helix.

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (13-1041); Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association

Issues

Is a federal agency required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before it can alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of the agency’s regulation?

The Supreme Court will consider whether a significant change in an interpretive rule issued by the Department of Labor (“Department”) requires the Department to undergo the notice-and-comment process. The Department, Secretary of Labor Perez, and Nickols argue that the APA explicitly exempts interpretative rules from the notice-and-comment process. However, the Mortgage Bankers Association (“MBA”) argues that when an agency issues new interpretation that substantially changes a prior definitive interpretation and has the force of law, the agency has in fact engaged in substantive or legislative rulemaking and must undergo the notice-and-comment. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case may affect the extent to which agencies are held accountable for significant changes in their policy interpretations and the agencies’ power to amend rules that are ineffective or reflect an outdated view of the agency. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., generally provides that “notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b), and, if such notice is required, the rulemaking agency must give interested persons an opportunity to submit written comments, 5 U.S.C. 553(c). The APA further provides that its notice-and comment requirement “does not apply * * * to interpretative rules,” unless notice is otherwise required by statute. 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (A). No other statute requires notice in this case. The question presented is:

Whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.

Nickols v. Mortgage Banker Assn.

The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-59, “established the maximum procedural requirements which Congress was willing to have the courts impose upon agencies in conducting rulemaking procedures.” Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 524 (1978). Section 553 of the Act sets forth notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, but exempts “interpretative rules,” among others, from the notice-and-comment requirement. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). The D.C. Circuit, in a line of cases descending from Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997), has created a per se rule holding that although an agency may issue an initial interpretative rule without going through notice and comment, “[o]nce an agency gives its regulation an interpretation, it can only change that interpretation as it would formally modify the regulation itself: through the process of notice and comment rulemaking.” Id. at 586. In this case, the D.C. Circuit invoked the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine-which is contrary to the plain text of the Act, numerous decisions of this Court, and the opinions of the majority of circuit courts-to invalidate a Department of Labor interpretation concluding that mortgage loan officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The question presented is: 

Whether agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act are categorically prohibited from revising their interpretative rules unless such revisions are made through notice-and- comment rulemaking.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Congress established federal overtime guarantees for employees who work more than forty hours per week. See Mortgage Bankers Association v. Harris (“Harris”), 720 F.3d 966, 968 (D.C. Cir. 2013). At the same time, the FLSA exempts certain employees from its overtime requirements, including those “employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity[,] . . .

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Cynthia Farina of Cornell Law School for her helpful insight into the issues of this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

United States v. Washington

Issues

Does a state workers’ compensation law that only applies to federal contract workers who work at a specific federal facility violate the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the State of Washington’s workers’ compensation law may apply to certain federal contract workers without violating the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, which prevents state and federal governments from interfering with each other’s sovereignty. The United States argues the intergovernmental immunity doctrine applies and mandates that the state workers’ compensation law apply evenhandedly to federal, state, and private actors. Washington counters that the federal government has waived its intergovernmental immunity by statute, and even if it did not, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine does not require completely equal treatment of federal and non-federal actors. The outcome of this case has important implications for consideration of workplace dangers and the costs associated with workers’ compensation. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a state workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to federal contract workers who perform services at a specified federal facility is barred by principles of intergovernmental immunity, or is instead authorized by 40 U.S.C. § 3172(a), which permits the application of state workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities “in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.”

The Hanford site is a decommissioned federal facility for nuclear production in Washington State. United States v. Washington at 858. While active during World War II and the Cold War, approximately two-thirds of the United States’ weapons grade plutonium was produced at the Hanford facility. Id. The nuclear production resulted in large amounts of chemically hazardous and radioactive waste. Id.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

workers compensation

Workers' compensation laws protect people who become injured or disabled while working at their jobs. The laws provide the injured workers with fixed monetary awards in an attempt to eliminate the need for litigation. These laws also provide benefits for dependents of those workers who are killed because of work-related accidents or illnesses.

Subscribe to Workers’ Compensation