Michael Shane Christopher, et al., Petitioners v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation Dba Glaxosmithkline (567 U.S. 142)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 18, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 567 U.S. 142 · 132 S. Ct. 2156
- Decided
- June 18, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2011
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) imposes minimum wage and maximum hours requirements on employers, see 52 Stat. 1062-1063, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§206-207 (2006 ed. and Supp. IV), but those requirements do not apply to workers employed “in the capacity of outside salesman,” § 213(a)(1). This case requires us to decide whether the term “outside salesman,” as defined by Department of Labor (DOL or Department) regulations, encompasses pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duty is to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer’s prescription drugs in appropriate cases. We conclude that these employees qualify as “outside salesm[e]n.” I A Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938 with the goal of “pro-teet[ing] all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours.” Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U. S. 728, 739 (1981); see also 29 U. S. C. § 202(a). Among other requirements, the FLSA obligates employers to compensate employees for hours in excess of 40 per week at a rate of 1½ times the employees’ regular wages. See § 207(a). The overtime compensation requirement, however, does not apply with respect to all employees. See § 213. As relevant here, the statute exempts workers “employed ... in the capacity of outside salesman.” § 213(a)(1). Congress did…
Excerpt of a 47,798-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.