117 F.4th 611
5th Cir.2024Background
- The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has defined the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) "White Collar Exemption"—covering executive, administrative, or professional employees—for over eighty years, historically including a minimum-salary requirement.
- In 2019, DOL raised the minimum salary threshold for the exemption from $455 to $684 per week.
- Plaintiff Robert Mayfield, an Austin-based small-business owner, sued DOL, arguing that any salary-level requirement exceeded DOL's statutory authority and violated the nondelegation doctrine.
- Mayfield did not challenge the level of the salary threshold, only DOL’s authority to include a salary test at all.
- The district court granted summary judgment to DOL, rejecting Mayfield's arguments; Mayfield appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DOL’s Authority to Set Salary Levels for Exemption | DOL lacks statutory authority to use a salary-level test in defining the exemption. | Statute delegates authority to DOL to "define and delimit" exemption terms, justifying salary test. | DOL has authority; rule is within congressional delegation. |
| Major Questions Doctrine | The salary rule implicates issues of economic/political significance requiring clearer congressional authorization. | This rule is not economically or politically significant enough for the doctrine to apply; DOL has long exercised this authority. | Major questions doctrine does not apply; rule upheld. |
| Statutory Interpretation (Scope of "define and delimit") | "Define and delimit" limits DOL to specifying job duties, not salary or other characteristics. | "Define and delimit" allows DOL to use reasonable proxies, such as salary, to clarify exemption status. | Salary requirement is a permissible way to define and delimit the exemption. |
| Nondelegation Doctrine | The delegation gives DOL unbounded power, violating the requirement for an intelligible principle. | The FLSA and exemption text provide sufficient guidance to constitute an intelligible principle. | Delegation is constitutionally sufficient; no violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wirtz v. Mississippi Publishers Corp., 364 F.2d 603 (5th Cir. 1966) (upholding DOL’s latitude in defining "bona fide executive" and the rationality of the minimum salary requirement)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (providing framework for the nondelegation doctrine’s “intelligible principle” test)
- Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (reiterating the broad permissibility of delegations where an intelligible principle is present)
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024) (clarifying standard for statutory interpretation concerning agency authority)
- Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128 (2019) (discussing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine)