Paper Example on Case of Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro

Core Issue

"The core issue in this case involving Encino Motorcars, LLC and Navarro is whether service advisors are exempted from overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)" (Legal Information Institute, n.d., par. 2). Navarro and others were employed by Encino Motorcars, LLC, an automobile dealership that services and sells Mercedes-Benz cars, to work as service advisers. They were tasked with the responsibilities of greeting owners of cars who visited the dealership's service area, listening keenly to the concerns customers had regarding their cars, examining maintenance and repair requirements for the cars, recommend services, and giving car owners estimates. After a while, Navarro and other service advisers sued Encino Motorcars for violating the FLSA. They argued that the automobile dealership had failed to compensate them overtime wages.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to FLSA, employers are required to pay covered workers overtime compensation. The compensation should apply to workers who have worked for more than 40 hours a week (Garcia, 2016). Employees not covered by this act are salesmen, mechanics, and partsmen tasked with the role of servicing and selling automobiles.

Positions Both Sides Are Taking

The parties in the case have different positions regarding the exemption of service advisers. Navarro and other argued that the automobile dealership should have compensated them for the overtime hours worked. This is because they believed that service advisers are covered by the FLSA. Navarro further argues that service advisors cannot be classified as salesmen because they do not make sales. Instead, service advisors majorly advise customers and ensure there is a flow of information between the customers and service department. Moreover, Navarro also argued that the objective of the Congress in passing the FLSA and the exemption supported the narrow interpretation of the act.

Encino Motorcars had an opposing view. The automobile dealership argued that service advisers are not covered by the FLSA. This makes them not be entitled to compensation for overtime hours worked. As a result of this, the company decided not to pay Navarro and others overtime pay. Also, the automobile dealership argues that textual and grammatical indicators support the interpretation linking the responsibilities of the salesmen and service advisors (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). For instance, the automobile dealership asserts that grammar rules call for the terms servicing and selling to be interpreted broadly. When the words are interpreted plainly, they all apply to the salesman. This is because some salesmen take part in selling services, while there are others who sell cars.

This case is critical from a policy perspective. The reason for saying this is because if a decision is arrived at in favor of Navarro, then it means that all automobile dealerships in different parts of the United States will be forced to change the payment system they use for service advisors. Also, the decision could make automobile dealerships be exposed to back-pay and retroactive liability to deal with issues relating to FLSA overtime.

The Side with the Strongest Argument

Encino Motorcars had the strongest argument. The reason for this is that salesman is the same as a service advisor. What makes them similar is that they all sell services for cars. The only distinction is that salesman goes further to sell even goods. The duties of service advisors make them be considered as salesmen. Service advisors spend a significant portion of their time servicing vehicles and assisting at automobile dealerships. Additionally, service advisors have a primary responsibility of servicing cars (Lacy, 2016). In this case, servicing refers to repairing and maintaining cars or the act of offering the service. Therefore, service advisors play a critical role in the process of servicing and this makes their role to be similar to that of partsmen and salesmen. Both partsmen and service advisors do not take time to physically repair cars. This is because their responsibility is majorly based on servicing cars.

The Congress used the term "engaged in" in the FLSA to show that the exemption needs to be construed broadly. Deciding to exempt service workers is aligned with the broader scheme of the FLSA. Some sections of the FLSA leave out persons working on commission and in sales. These persons have similar job descriptions as service advisors, and they are exempted from the compensation requirement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the side with the strongest argument has the highest chance of winning the case. In this case of Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, Encino won the case at the end. This is because the court argued in support of the automobile leadership position. It was maintained that service advisors are same as salesmen. Both the two parties sell a particular thing to customers, such as services and goods. For instance, Navarro and other service advisors were tasked with the responsibility of selling services. The court also held that service advisors play a significant role in repairing and maintaining services to car customers. These functions are similar to those carried out by salesmen, partsmen, and mechanics.

References

Garcia, R. J. (2016). An Equally Divided Court: Workplace Law in the US Supreme Court 2015-2016. Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J., 20, 197.

Lacy, T. (2016). Well There's Your Problem: Diagnosing and Repairing Auto Dealership Exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bus. & Bankr. LJ, 4, 85.

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Encino Motorcars, LLC V. Navarro. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/16-1362