Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 98-1167, Christensen versus Harris County will be announced by Justice Thomas.
Argument of Justice Thomas
Mr. Thomas: This case comes to us on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act commonly known as FLSA, states and ,municipalities may compensate their employees for overtime work by granting them compensatory time, which then entitles employees to time off with full pay.
Petitioners of Deputy Sheriffs of Harris County, they agreed to accept compensatory time instead of cash compensation.
As petitioners began accumulating hours of compensatory time, Harris County became concerned that the employees would not use their compensatory time by taking time off.
Under the FLSA, if employees do not use compensatory time, the County would have to pay the employees in cash for unused hours.
To avoid a budgetary crisis, the County ordered petitioners to use their accumulated compensatory time.
Petitioner sued, claiming that the FLSA prohibits the County from compelling employees to use this time.
The District Court agreed, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that nothing in the FLSA prohibits this compelled use.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk today, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Both petitioners and the United States as amicus curiae concede that nothing in the FLSA explicitly prohibits Harris County from requiring employees to use compensatory time.
Instead they argue that the FLSA implicitly prohibits such a practice in the absence of employee consent.
They contend that because the FLSA details some ways in which compensatory time can be used in the other ways including compelled use are implicitly foreclosed, we disagree.
The FLSA provision cited by petitioners and the United States simply ensure that employees receive some timely benefit for working overtime.
These provisions do not imply that an employer is prohibited from taking steps to make sure that employees actually use the compensatory time that they agreed to accept.
Citing our decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, petitioners and the United States also argue that we should defer to their reading because it is shared by the Department of Labor.
Prior to this lawsuit, the Department of Labor issued an opinion letter that interpreted the FLSA to prohibit compelled use.
We decline to give this opinion Chevron style deference.
Interpretations such as those in opinion letters like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines lack the force of law and simply do not warrant Chevron deference.
Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment; Justice Souter has filed a concurring opinion; Justice Stevens has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer have joined; and Justice Breyer has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg has joined.
