292:...the conclusion of the Administrator is that the general tests which he has suggested point to the exclusion of sleeping and eating time of these employees from the work-week and the inclusion of all other on-call time: although the employees were required to remain on the premises during the entire time, the evidence shows that they were very rarely interrupted in their normal sleeping and eating time, and these are pursuits of a purely private nature which would presumably occupy the employees' time whether they were on duty or not and which apparently could be pursued adequately and comfortably in the required circumstances; the rest of the time is different because there is nothing in the record to suggest that, even though pleasurably spent, it was spent in the ways the men would have chosen had they been free to do so.
282:
is a question of fact, to be resolved by the trial courts. Congress created the office of the administrator, providing him with responsibilities and empowering him to implement them subject to the act. In pursuit of his duties, the administrator has gathered considerable experience in the problems of ascertaining working time in employment involving periods of inactivity and knowledge of how to resolve disputes over working time. The administrator has set forth views of the application of the Act under different circumstances. Such views, under Wage and Hour
Division Interpretative Bulletin No. 13., provide a guide on how to settle such disputes. As the Court stated in resolving the dispute:
31:
587:
354:
If, however, the court determined that
Congress had not directly addressed the precise question at issue, and the statute was silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the court did not simply impose its own construction on the statute but determined whether the agency's answer was based on a permissible construction of the statute. Although
256:
to recover overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees, totaling approximately $ 77,000 (equivalent to $ 1.33 million in 2023). The employees were required to stay on the packing plant's premises when they were not on the clock. In the action brought by the employees to recover overtime for the
281:
The Court decided that no principle of law either in the Act or in Court decisions precludes waiting time from also being working time. Moreover, the Court did not attempt to lay down a legal formula to resolve similar cases, based on their facts. Whether waiting time falls within or without the Act
353:
two-step test") in which a reviewing court first determined whether
Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress was clear, that was the end of the matter because the court and the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.
296:
The court stated that no statutory provision stated to what deference courts should pay to the administrator's guidance. However, the court stated that "we consider that the rulings, interpretations and opinions of the
Administrator under this Act, while not controlling upon the courts by reason of
286:
The
Administrator thinks the problems presented by inactive duty require a flexible solution... and his Bulletin endeavors to suggest standards and examples to guide in particular situations…. depends 'upon the degree to which the employee is free to engage in personal activities during periods of
390:
The majority attempted to draw a bright line between formal agency documents (such as legislative rules) and less formal ones (such as opinion letters). Therefore, the opinion letter of the
Department of Labor was not binding on the court. The court went on to state nothing in the FLSA that
257:
periods that they spent on call, the district court ruled that the time employees spent waiting to respond to alarms did not count as hours worked. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The employees appealed to the Supreme Court.
391:
prohibited the forced use of compensation time. Justice Thomas delivered the 6–3 decision of the court in favor of Harris County and ruled that an agency's interpretation of a statute, announced in more informal agency papers (such as an opinion letter) is entitled to
448:
and reiterates deference to agency interpretations that do not have statutory authority resulting from a rulemaking process are based on "the agency's care, its consistency, formality, and relative expertness, and to the persuasiveness of the agency's position."
327:, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether courts should grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers. Until it was overturned by
1051:
926:
382:. The Court held that an opinion letter from the Department of Labor, stating that an employer had to get the employee to agree first before it required the employee to schedule time off, did not receive
1186:
1059:
1008:
1067:
323:
101:
378:, 529 U.S. 576 (2000), is a Supreme Court case holding that a county's policy of requiring employees to schedule time off to avoid accruing time off was not prohibited by the
1238:
236:
deference, which considers the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator. The
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
232:
decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness. The court adopted a case-by-case test, the
878:
862:
604:
466:
287:
idleness when he is subject to call and the number of consecutive hours that the employee is subject to call without being required to perform active work.'
72:
270:
105:
1170:
1146:
910:
699:
1218:
846:
501:
1228:
1154:
1178:
297:
their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance."
1000:
430:
held that an agency's interpretation of a statute, announced in more informal agency papers (such as an opinion letter), is entitled to
337:
was the Court's clearest articulation of the doctrine of "administrative deference" to the point that the Court itself used the phrase "
1213:
1091:
976:
902:
761:
1223:
1162:
591:
300:
The court developed a test to determine the deference to be given to an administrative agency's rules based on the following:
1233:
870:
1123:
329:
692:
459:
35:
708:
266:
253:
215:
406:
deference was questioned by
Justice Scalia but is still used when agency actions do not carry the force of law.
1043:
968:
767:
685:
118:
Nothing in the Fair Labor
Standards Act or Court holdings precludes waiting time from also being working time.
732:
1083:
942:
755:
660:
412:
374:
1099:
1027:
791:
486:
440:
229:
805:
773:
624:
642:
379:
835:
737:
894:
608:
185:
64:
633:
1115:
934:
8:
918:
550:
153:
615:
567:
245:
165:
984:
886:
422:
370:
deference as a means for agency interpretation to be respected in judicial overview.
342:
249:
177:
161:
545:
798:
677:
559:
67:
1107:
1075:
811:
747:
651:
133:
992:
828:
407:
1207:
722:
173:
141:
669:
502:"Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies"
345:, upheld the EPA's interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the
727:
571:
506:
149:
83:
341:
deference" in more recent cases. The Court, in an opinion by Justice
563:
586:
324:
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
79:
30:
386:
deference but should receive the less deferential standard of
879:
Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization
467:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 323
1239:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
707:
493:
546:"On-Call Time under the Fair Labor Standards Act"
1205:
310:The consistency of its interpretation over time
304:The thoroughness of the agency's investigation
693:
444:, 533 U.S. 218 (2001), explicitly reaffirms
54:John Skidmore, et al. v. Swift & Company
977:Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
903:Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
700:
686:
317:
100:Judgment for defendant, 53 F.Supp. 1020 (
543:
1163:Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital
1206:
1219:United States administrative case law
681:
313:Other persuasive powers of the agency
18:1944 United States Supreme Court case
1229:Meat processing in the United States
1124:Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
499:
330:Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
13:
537:
460:Swift and Company v. United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1250:
1214:United States Supreme Court cases
611:134 (1944) is available from:
579:
709:United States administrative law
585:
254:Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
216:Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
29:
593:Skidmore v. Swift & Company
104:1942); affirmed, 136 F.2d 112 (
1224:1944 in United States case law
1044:Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
969:Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
768:Government in the Sunshine Act
521:
479:
265:What deference was due to the
252:, brought an action under the
1:
472:
307:The validity of its reasoning
239:
1234:History of Fort Worth, Texas
1084:Christensen v. Harris County
943:Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
756:Administrative Procedure Act
413:Christensen v. Harris County
375:Christensen v. Harris County
228:, 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a
7:
1100:United States v. Mead Corp.
1036:Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
1028:NLRB v. Hearst Publications
792:Code of Federal Regulations
601:Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
500:Howe, Amy (June 28, 2024).
490:, 533 U.S. 218, 226 (2001).
487:United States v. Mead Corp.
452:
441:United States v. Mead Corp.
426:. However, the majority in
402:The continuing vitality of
388:Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
276:
230:United States Supreme Court
225:Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
24:Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
10:
1255:
806:Emergency Federal Register
774:Regulatory Flexibility Act
762:Freedom of Information Act
670:Oyez (oral argument audio)
1138:
1019:
960:
953:
854:
845:
820:
783:
746:
715:
530:, 533 US 218, 228 (2001).
528:United States v Mead Corp
214:
209:
198:
193:
127:
122:
117:
112:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
410:, in his concurrence in
380:Fair Labor Standards Act
260:
45:Decided December 4, 1944
847:Supreme Court decisions
544:Phillips, Eric (1997).
333:, 603 U.S. ___ (2024),
318:Subsequent developments
244:Seven employees of the
43:Argued October 13, 1944
927:Vermont Yankee v. NRDC
911:United States v. FECRC
836:Foreign Affairs Manual
738:Nondelegation doctrine
362:, it did not overturn
349:decision (called the "
294:
289:
895:Richardson v. Perales
290:
284:
271:administrative agency
1116:West Virginia v. EPA
935:Califano v. Yamasaki
821:Policies and manuals
267:interpretative rules
919:Mathews v. Eldridge
748:Federal legislation
661:Library of Congress
551:Michigan Law Review
420:has no place since
246:Swift & Company
202:Jackson, joined by
1052:MVMA v. State Farm
1009:Corner Post v. FRB
871:Londoner v. Denver
863:CMSPR v. Minnesota
166:William O. Douglas
138:Associate Justices
78:65 S. Ct. 161; 89
1201:
1200:
1197:
1196:
1134:
1133:
985:Heckler v. Chaney
887:Goldberg v. Kelly
590:Works related to
343:John Paul Stevens
250:Fort Worth, Texas
248:packing plant in
221:
220:
186:Wiley B. Rutledge
178:Robert H. Jackson
162:Felix Frankfurter
1246:
958:
957:
852:
851:
799:Federal Register
702:
695:
688:
679:
678:
674:
668:
665:
659:
656:
650:
647:
641:
638:
632:
629:
623:
620:
614:
589:
575:
558:(8): 2633–2655.
531:
525:
519:
518:
516:
514:
497:
491:
483:
123:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1193:
1187:NCTA v. Brand X
1130:
1108:Kisor v. Wilkie
1076:Auer v. Robbins
1068:Chevron v. NRDC
1015:
954:Judicial Review
949:
841:
816:
812:Regulations.gov
779:
742:
711:
706:
672:
666:
663:
657:
654:
648:
645:
639:
636:
630:
627:
621:
618:
612:
582:
564:10.2307/1290127
540:
538:Further reading
535:
534:
526:
522:
512:
510:
498:
494:
484:
480:
475:
455:
434:deference, not
395:deference, not
320:
279:
263:
242:
176:
164:
154:Stanley F. Reed
152:
134:Harlan F. Stone
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1252:
1242:
1241:
1236:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1216:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1192:
1191:
1183:
1179:Whitman v. ATA
1175:
1167:
1159:
1151:
1142:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1128:
1120:
1112:
1104:
1096:
1088:
1080:
1072:
1064:
1056:
1048:
1040:
1032:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1014:
1013:
1005:
1001:Norton v. SUWA
997:
993:Webster v. Doe
989:
981:
973:
964:
962:
955:
951:
950:
948:
947:
939:
931:
923:
915:
907:
899:
891:
883:
875:
867:
858:
856:
849:
843:
842:
840:
839:
832:
829:Justice Manual
824:
822:
818:
817:
815:
814:
809:
802:
795:
787:
785:
781:
780:
778:
777:
771:
765:
759:
752:
750:
744:
743:
741:
740:
735:
730:
725:
719:
717:
713:
712:
705:
704:
697:
690:
682:
676:
675:
643:Google Scholar
597:
581:
580:External links
578:
577:
576:
539:
536:
533:
532:
520:
492:
477:
476:
474:
471:
470:
469:
464:
454:
451:
416:, argued that
408:Justice Scalia
319:
316:
315:
314:
311:
308:
305:
278:
275:
262:
259:
241:
238:
219:
218:
212:
211:
207:
206:
200:
196:
195:
191:
190:
189:
188:
139:
136:
131:
125:
124:
120:
119:
115:
114:
110:
109:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1251:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1209:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:Gade v. NSWMA
1168:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1155:CFTC v. Schor
1152:
1149:
1148:
1147:INS v. Chadha
1144:
1143:
1141:
1139:Agency Action
1137:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1018:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
990:
987:
986:
982:
979:
978:
974:
971:
970:
966:
965:
963:
961:Reviewability
959:
956:
952:
945:
944:
940:
937:
936:
932:
929:
928:
924:
921:
920:
916:
913:
912:
908:
905:
904:
900:
897:
896:
892:
889:
888:
884:
881:
880:
876:
873:
872:
868:
865:
864:
860:
859:
857:
853:
850:
848:
844:
838:
837:
833:
831:
830:
826:
825:
823:
819:
813:
810:
808:
807:
803:
801:
800:
796:
794:
793:
789:
788:
786:
782:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
754:
753:
751:
749:
745:
739:
736:
734:
731:
729:
726:
724:
721:
720:
718:
714:
710:
703:
698:
696:
691:
689:
684:
683:
680:
671:
662:
653:
644:
635:
626:
625:CourtListener
617:
610:
606:
602:
598:
596:at Wikisource
595:
594:
588:
584:
583:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
547:
542:
541:
529:
524:
509:
508:
503:
496:
489:
488:
482:
478:
468:
465:
462:
461:
457:
456:
450:
447:
443:
442:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:
419:
415:
414:
409:
405:
400:
398:
394:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
371:
369:
366:and left the
365:
361:
357:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
326:
325:
312:
309:
306:
303:
302:
301:
298:
293:
288:
283:
274:
272:
268:
258:
255:
251:
247:
237:
235:
231:
227:
226:
217:
213:
208:
205:
201:
197:
192:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
140:
137:
135:
132:
130:Chief Justice
129:
128:
126:
121:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1185:
1177:
1169:
1161:
1153:
1145:
1122:
1114:
1106:
1098:
1090:
1082:
1074:
1066:
1060:BGLC v. NRDC
1058:
1050:
1042:
1035:
1034:
1026:
1007:
999:
991:
983:
975:
967:
941:
933:
925:
917:
909:
901:
893:
885:
877:
869:
861:
834:
827:
804:
797:
790:
723:Adjudication
600:
592:
555:
549:
527:
523:
511:. Retrieved
505:
495:
485:
481:
458:
445:
439:
435:
431:
427:
421:
417:
411:
403:
401:
396:
392:
387:
383:
373:
372:
367:
363:
359:
355:
350:
346:
338:
334:
328:
322:
321:
299:
295:
291:
285:
280:
264:
243:
233:
224:
223:
222:
210:Laws applied
203:
194:Case opinion
181:
174:Frank Murphy
169:
157:
145:
142:Owen Roberts
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
1092:FDA v. BWTC
855:Due Process
784:Regulations
438:deference.
428:Christensen
399:deference.
358:overturned
1208:Categories
728:Rulemaking
507:SCOTUSBlog
473:References
240:Background
150:Hugo Black
102:N.D. Texas
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:124; 1944
204:unanimous
60:Citations
1020:Standard
716:Concepts
599:Text of
513:June 29,
453:See also
446:Skidmore
432:Skidmore
418:Skidmore
404:Skidmore
393:Skidmore
368:Skidmore
364:Skidmore
277:Decision
234:Skidmore
199:Majority
106:5th Cir.
634:Findlaw
616:Cornell
572:1290127
436:Chevron
423:Chevron
397:Chevron
384:Chevron
360:Chevron
351:Chevron
347:Chevron
339:Chevron
335:Chevron
113:Holding
1190:(2005)
1182:(2001)
1174:(1992)
1166:(1988)
1158:(1986)
1150:(1983)
1127:(2024)
1119:(2022)
1111:(2019)
1103:(2001)
1095:(2000)
1087:(2000)
1079:(1997)
1071:(1984)
1063:(1983)
1055:(1983)
1047:(1951)
1039:(1944)
1031:(1944)
1012:(2024)
1004:(2004)
996:(1988)
988:(1985)
980:(1971)
972:(1967)
946:(1982)
938:(1979)
930:(1978)
922:(1976)
914:(1973)
906:(1972)
898:(1971)
890:(1970)
882:(1915)
874:(1908)
866:(1890)
776:(1980)
770:(1976)
764:(1966)
758:(1946)
733:Notice
673:
667:
664:
658:
655:
652:Justia
649:
646:
640:
637:
631:
628:
622:
619:
613:
570:
463:(1909)
269:of an
184:
182:·
180:
172:
170:·
168:
160:
158:·
156:
148:
146:·
144:
80:L. Ed.
607:
568:JSTOR
356:Loper
261:Issue
108:1943)
97:Prior
609:U.S.
515:2024
86:1253
73:more
65:U.S.
63:323
605:323
560:doi
68:134
1210::
603:,
566:.
556:95
554:.
548:.
504:.
273:?
701:e
694:t
687:v
574:.
562::
517:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.