How Does Supreme Court’s Remand of Transgender Discrimination Case Impact Wage-and-Hour Class Actions?
On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court, in a one-sentence summary disposition, remanded the case of Gloucester County Sch. Bd. v. G.G. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit “for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.” For those unfamiliar with Gloucester County, the case involves a public school’s obligations to a transgender student under Title IX and, in particular, whether Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination requires a school to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity when providing sex-separated facilities, such as toilets, locker rooms, and showers.
So what does this have to do with wage-and-hour class actions? As it turns out, in Gloucester County, the Supreme Court was poised to consider the scope, and perhaps the continuing viability, of the Auer doctrine, which frequently comes into play in wage-and-hour litigation. Under the Auer doctrine, courts generally will enforce an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless that interpretation is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” In wage-and-hour class actions, this often results in cases being decided based on guidance issued by the Department of Labor through opinion letters, its Field Operations Handbook, and other sources.
This deference to the Department of Labor can be frustrating for employers and attorneys practicing wage-and-hour law because the guidance issued by the Department of Labor often changes with each new Presidential administration. For example, an entire industry can decide to classify a group of employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements based on an opinion letter from the Department of Labor only to learn years later that the Department has withdrawn the opinion letter after the start of a new administration. If courts are obligated under Auer to defer to these shifting interpretations issued by the Department of Labor, it can create a great deal of uncertainty for employers seeking to comply with the FLSA and for parties litigating wage-and-hour class actions.
In the long term, eliminating or narrowing the Auer doctrine could provide more consistency for employers and litigants. With the remand of Gloucester County, that is unlikely to happen in the near future. In the short term, however, the continuing viability of the Auer doctrine may benefit employers who are hopeful that the Department of Labor, under the Trump administration, will take a more employer-friendly view of certain regulations. For now, the Department of Labor remains free to shape FLSA through opinion letters and other guidance documents and without having to resort to the time-consuming process of issuing revised regulations.