Christensen v. Harris County
 |
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (September 2009) |
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009) |
| Christensen v. Harris County | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 23, 2000 Decided May 1, 2000 |
||||||
| Full case name | Edward Christensen, et al. v. Harris County, et al. | |||||
| Citations | 529 U.S. 576 (more) 120 S. Ct. 1655; 146 L. Ed. 2d 621 |
|||||
| Prior history | 158 F.3d 241 (affirmed) | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| An opinion letter from the Department of Labor stating that an employer had to first get the employee to agree before requiring the employee to schedule time off did not receive Chevron deference and instead should receive the less deferential standard of Skidmore v. Swift. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Scalia (except for Part III) | |||||
| Concurrence | Souter | |||||
| Concurrence | Scalia (concurring in the judgment and all but Part III) | |||||
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg and Breyer | |||||
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq. | ||||||
Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) is a Supreme Court of the United States case holding that a county's policy of requiring that employees schedule time off so that they do not accrue time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Harris County Sheriff's department, in an attempt to reduce overtime ependitures, forced deputies to use accumulated compensatory time before they reached the limit which would require overtime payments. The petitioners argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibited the forced use of "comp time." Respondents argued that the FLSA allows cashing out comp time and does not guarantee a minimum 40 hour work week. The United States Department of Labor had issued an opinion letter stating that the forced use of comp time violated the act.
The Court held that an opinion letter from the Department of Labor stating that an employer had to first get the employee to agree before requiring the employee to schedule time off did not receive Chevron deference and instead should receive the less deferential standard of Skidmore v. Swift & Co. The majority attempted to draw a bright line between formal agency documents (e.g., legislative rules) and less formal ones (e.g., opinion letters). Therefore, the opinion letter of the Department of Labor was not binding on the court. The court went on to state that there is nothing in the FLSA that prohibited the forced use of comp time. Judge Thomas delivered the 6-3 decision of the court in favor of Respondent Harris County.
Advocates: Matthew D. Roberts argued the case for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of court. Michael P. Fleming, Harris County Attorney, Houston, Texas, argued case for Respondent. Michael T. Leibig argued case for Petitioner.
[edit] See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 529
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
[edit] External links
- http://us.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1167 (Oyez website)
|
|||||||||||
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
