Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
16-1189
IN THE
Petitioners,
v.
BOBBI-JO SMILEY, AMBER BLOW, AND KELSEY TURNER,
Respondents.
___________
Ilya Shapiro
Counsel of Record
Frank Garrison
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Mass. Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 842-0200
ishapiro@cato.org
fgarrison@cato.org
May 1, 2017
1
Respectfully submitted,
Ilya Shapiro
Counsel of Record
Frank Garrison
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Mass. Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 842-0200
ishapiro@cato.org
fgarrison@cato.org
May 1, 2017
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This case concerns whether, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), employers that have paid em-
ployees for otherwise non-compensable meal breaks
and included such compensation in their regular rate
of pay may credit such payments against any overtime
compensation owed to employees for time spent per-
forming shift relief and donning and doffing their uni-
forms and protective gear. The Third Circuit and De-
partment of Labor (DOL) acknowledged that the
FLSA is silent and does not expressly prohibit this pay
practice. Nevertheless, and contrary to this Courts de-
cisions in Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315
U.S. 386 (1942) and Christensen v. Harris County, 529
U.S. 576 (2000), the Third Circuit held that the FLSAs
lack of express authorization of the practice at issue
meant that it is implicitly prohibited. This holding also
conflicts with Seventh and Eleventh Circuit rulings.
In reaching its decision, the Third Circuit deferred
to amicus briefs submitted by the DOL, even without
finding the statute to be ambiguous and even though
DOL has never promulgated a regulation, issued an
opinion letter, or taken any enforcement actions con-
cerning the practice at issue. The courts decision deep-
ens a circuit split concerning whether such deference
should be accorded to statutory interpretations by
agencies expressed for the first time in litigation.
The questions presented are:
1. Does the FLSA stop employers from using com-
pensation for non-compensable meal breaks as a credit
against compensation owed employees for work time?
2. Should courts defer to agency statutory inter-
pretations advanced for the first time in litigation?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF
AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS ...................................................... 1
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ................... 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 1
ARGUMENT FOR GRANTING THE PETITION..... 3
I. THE THIRD CIRCUITS DECISION CREATES
SERIOUS SEPARATION OF POWERS
CONCERNS UNDER ARTICLE I ........................ 3
A. Delegation of Congressional Power to an
Executive Agency Requires an Intelligible
Principle .......................................................... 5
B. The Third Circuits Construction of the
FLSA Allows Congress to Delegate Power
with No Intelligible Principle ....................... 9
II. DEFERRING TO AN AGENCYS STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION ADVANCED FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN LITIGATION VIOLATES THE
DUE PROCESS OF LAW ................................... 11
A. Due Process Requires Fair Notice ................. 11
B. Petitioners Had No Notice that Their
Practice Might Be Forbidden by the FLSA ... 12
C. Granting Deference that Favors One Party
Over the Other During Litigation Creates
Bias and Violates Due Process ...................... 14
CONCLUSION ......................................................... 17
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States,
295 U.S. 495 (1935) ............................................ 8, 10
Avery v. City of Talladega,
24 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 1994) ................................ 13
Barefield v. Village of Winnetka,
82 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 1996) .................................... 13
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,
556 U.S. 868 (2009) ................................................ 16
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
567 U.S. 142 (2012) ........................................... 11-12
City of Arlington v. FCC,
133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) .......................................... 5, 8
Clinton v. City of New York,
524 U.S. 417 (1998) .................................................. 4
De Niz Robles v. Lynch,
803 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2015) .............................. 12
Dept of Transp. v. Assn. of Am. R.R.,
135 S. Ct. 1225 (2015) ...................................... 3, 4, 7
FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc.,
567 U.S. 239 (2012) ................................................ 11
Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accting Oversight
Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) ...................................... 8
Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch,
834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016) .............................. 15
In re Murchison,
349 U.S. 133 (1955) ................................................ 16
iv
INS v. Chadha,
462 U.S. 919 (1983) .................................................. 4
J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States,
276 U. S. 394 (1928) ................................................. 6
La. Pub. Serv. Commn v. FCC,
476 U.S. 355 (1986) .................................................. 9
Loving v. United States,
517 U.S. 748 (1996) .............................................. 5, 6
Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark,
143 U.S. 649 (1892) .................................................. 6
Mistretta v. United States,
488 U.S. 361 (1989) .................................................. 8
Or. Rest. & Lodging Assn v. Perez,
843 F.3d 355 (2016) ................................................ 10
Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan,
293 U.S. 388 (1935) .................................................. 8
Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Assn.,
135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) ....................................... 14-15
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm,
514 U.S. 211 (1995) .................................................. 4
Republican Party of Minn. v. White,
536 U.S. 765 (2002) ................................................ 16
Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.,
531 U. S. 457 (2001) ...................................... 5-6, 7, 9
Yakus v United States,
321 U.S. 414 (1944) .................................................. 6
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
343 U.S. 579 (1952) .................................................. 4
v
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const., Art I, 1................................................... 5
Other Authorities
Gary Lawson, Delegation and Original Meaning,
88 Va. L. Rev. 327 (2002) ...................................... 7-8
Gary Lawson, The Rise and Rise of the
Administrative State, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1231
(1994) .................................................................... 5, 9
John F. Manning, Lawmaking Made Easy,
10 Green Bag 2d 191 (2007)..................................... 4
John F. Manning, The Nondelegation Doctrine as
a Canon of Avoidance, 2000 Sup. Ct. Rev. 223
(2000) ........................................................................ 8
Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (Cohler et al.
trans., 1989) ............................................................. 3
Philip Hamburger, Law and Judicial Duty (2008) ... 15
Philip Hamburger, Chevron Bias,
84 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1187 (2016) .................. 15, 16
Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law
Unlawful? (2014) ...................................................... 5
The Federalist No. 47 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J.
Madison) ................................................................... 3
The Federalist, No. 51 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J.
Madison) ................................................................... 3
1
2 There is good reason for this skepticism, as the Court has not
struck down a law for violating the nondelegation doctrine since
the 1930s. See Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935);
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495
(1935). And since then, the modern administrative state has bal-
looned into a behemoth which wields vast power and touches al-
most every aspect of daily life. City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at
1878 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (citing Free Enter. Fund v. Public
Co. Accting Oversight Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3156 (2010)).
9
CONCLUSION
The Third Circuit below not only defied this Courts
precedent, but also created two circuit splits. These are
important issues that warrant review. But this case is
about more than that. Indeed, the lower courts opin-
ion sets a precedent that has broad implications for
constitutional structure and the due process of law.
The petition should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Ilya Shapiro
Counsel of Record
Frank Garrison
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Mass. Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 842-0200
ishapiro@cato.org
May 1, 2017