Encino Motorcars, LLC v Navarro

Encino sought review of the 9th Circuit decision that service advisors are not exempt from overtime requirements under 29 USC 213(b)(10(A). The Court, 5-4, reversed. The majority held that the best reading of the provision is that service advisors are salesmen engaged in either maintaining automobiles or providing those services and thus exempt, this reading is supported by the provision’s language about partsmen who also are integral to the maintenance of automobiles but do not spend most of their time under the hood, the distributive cannon does not apply here as the phrasing of the provision does not match up one on one, there is no basis to construe exemptions in 213 narrowly and neither the 1966 occupation handbook nor legislative history overcome the best reading here. Ginsberg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented arguing that service advisors were a different job in 1966 when salesmen, partsmen and mechanics were excluded from the exemption, those three jobs have irregular hours and thus it makes sense they are not exempt form overtime and Encino’s commission based compensation argument fails as retroactive liability is not legally available here and another provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act covers commission compensated employees.

Kisela v Hughes

Kisela sought review of the 9th Circuit decision denying his qualified immunity motion. The Court, 7-2, summarily reversed. The per curium majority held that it was not clearly established that Kisela violated the 4th Amendment when her shot Hughes through a fence as he knew Hughes had recently chopped at a tree with a  kitchen knife, acted sufficiently erratic that a bystander called 911 and flagged down two other officers and Hughes was within a few feet of another woman and Highs did not respond to instructions to drop the knife,  the most analogous 9th Circuit case found immunity and the case relied upon by the 9th Circuit had not been decided as of the date of the shooting. Sotomayor, joined by Ginsberg, dissented arguing that Hughes was calm, six feet from her roommate, the knife was at her side and the cutting edge was pointed away from the roommate, when had not committed a crime in the presence of the officers and was not suspected of any crime and neither raised the knife or made verbal threats to the roommate, that shooting Hughes during a welfare check on these facts clearly violated the 4th amendment and it is clearly established that lethal force cannot be used absent actual threat to the officers or a third party which did not exists here. She also argued that at the very least, the case should be remanded here instead of continuing the Court’s recent practice of encouraging police officers to shoot first and think later.