Greenbrier Ford, Inc., interpretation of FLSA and the defining tasks of service advisors were looked at to determine exemption or non-exemption for overtime. After discontinuing his job at a naval hospital due to injuries, Walton began working for Cavalier Ford automobile dealership as a service advisor (Walton v. Greenbrier Ford, 2004). Under this role, he was to greet customers, write down issues, and sell services, thus classifying him as a “salesman.” When Walton was unable to work shifts longer than eight hours, the dealership offered to transfer him to another area with similar tasks but less money. Instead, he quit and filed a claim for disregard for FLSA overtime compensation. Relying on Chevron deference for the Department of Labor regulation and interpretation, the petitioner based his compensation claim on the DOL’s provision of service advisors entitled to overtime pay. The court disregarded the DOL as unreasonable and held up the interpretation of the FLSA service advisors as exempt based on the employee’s job tasks being primarily focused and selling and servicing …show more content…
It was not until Encino Motorcars v. Navarro that the public became aware of regulation and interpretation changes within the Department of Labor in 2011. Much like the 2004 Walton v. Greenbrier Ford case, Navarro relied on Chevron deference, which allows the case to use the state agency policy of the DOL interpretation to petition service advisors as not “salesmen” and exempt from overtime compensation. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the previous Ninth Circuit Court judgement was vacated due to failure of the Department of Labor to sufficiently explain the reason for interpreting the FSLA regulation as not including Service Advisors as exempt. The Supreme Court decided that due to the lack of evidence for the DOL changing the interpretation in their 2011 guidelines, the Ninth Circuit Court could not use the Chevron deference (Lavin and DiMichele, 2015). Thus, the case was remanded and sent back to the lower courts for evaluation without interpretation from agencies like the Department of Labor. As of 2017, the case returned to the lower courts, which still deemed service advisors not exempt even without the Chevron deference unlike previous