Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (21-984)

argument 21-984

Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 33m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central dispute over the overtime exemption in Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument next in Case 21-984, Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt. Mr. Clement. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, respondent earned over $200,000 a year and conceitedly performed executive functions in supervising a dozen or more workers. He likewise was guaranteed at least $963 in any week in which he worked a minute. He is thus exempt from the overtime laws under the specialized streamlined exemption for highly compensated workers set forth in Section 601. Respondent nonetheless insists that he's entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime because his substantial pay was calculated based on a day rate and, in many weeks, his total compensation was was much larger than his guaranteed pay, and thus he flunked the test of Section 604B and its reasonable relationship test.

John G. Roberts 0:59

But Section 601 incorporates only the salary basis test of Section 602 and not the separate minimum guarantee plus extra rules of Section 604. Indeed, at the very moment that Section 601 was promulgated, the agency was broke apart Section 602 and Section 604. Section 601 has never incorporated this minimum guarantee plus extra rules of Section 604 for very good reason. Section 601 itself addresses the questions of extras on top of the minimum guarantee and addresses them in terms that are both duplicative of Section 604A and contradictory of Section 604B. In particular, Section 601 authorizes total compensation to dwarf the minimum guarantee in terms that Section 604B would deem unreasonable. Worse still, Section 604 looks unfavorably on compensation in excess of the minimum guarantee, while Section 601 looks at the same thing, compensation in excess of the minimum guarantee and

John G. Roberts 2:03

and says that's precisely what makes you highly compensated and therefore exempt. Respondent's position would put the regulations on a collision course, it would ignore the streamlined nature of 601, and it would divorce the regulations from the statutory text. The Court should reverse.

Clarence Thomas 2:20

Mr. Clement, the government says that its starting point is that whether or not this is, you've established that you, that the respondent is salaried. And he argues that he does not receive his compensation on a salary basis. I guess the government's argument is that once you make that determination, you're on an entirely different track from being on a wage basis. And although your case in this case, respondent makes quite a bit of money, you're suggesting that we can bypass determining whether or not he is on a salary basis. So, one, is that determination of being on a salary basis a sine qua non of bypassing all of these regs that you're talking about? If not, how do we establish that you're highly paid

Clarence Thomas 3:29

why don't we just consider your highly paid respondent here to simply be a wage earner, but a highly paid wage earner?

John G. Roberts 3:38

So, Justice Thomas, the way I'd respond to that is that Section 601 does not require a worker to be a salaried worker or to get any particular sort of, like, be in general or mostly paid on a salary basis. It's very specific. It says the total annual compensation is has to include at least $455 a week on a fee or salary basis. So that requires you to look at Section 602, but then to figure out how much you get on a salary basis. Section 602 doesn't, again, tell you whether you're mostly a salaried worker or a salaried worker in the abstract. It's very specific. And the test is really what is the amount that you receive in any week in which you work at least one minute. And for this worker, that was $963 or more.

John G. Roberts 4:25

And that $963 was a guarantee. So if you work even a minute in a week, you're going to get $963. That's a predetermined amount. That satisfies what the only requirement vis-a-vis a salary basis in Section 601, which is that your total annual compensation includes. at least $455 on a fee or salary basis. Counsel,

Ketanji Brown Jackson 4:48

I don't read the regulation that way, so can you help us to understand why you are saying that the amount is the only relevant marker of the applicability of 601? I thought it said that the person's total annual compensation must include at least $455 per week