Auer v. Robbins Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Police sergeants sued for overtime, arguing their pay was not salaried because it could be docked for discipline. The Supreme Court deferred to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of the governing regulation, holding the officers were exempt from overtime pay.
Legal Significance: This case established the highly deferential standard known as Auer deference, requiring courts to accept an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, even if that interpretation is presented for the first time in a legal brief.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioners, police sergeants and a lieutenant in St. Louis, sued for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The city claimed they were exempt as “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional” employees. Under Department of Labor regulations, exempt status requires payment on a “salary basis,” meaning the employee’s compensation is not “subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a). The police department manual contained a list of disciplinary infractions and potential penalties, including pay deductions, that applied to all department employees. Petitioners argued that because their pay could theoretically be docked for disciplinary reasons, they were “subject to” such deductions and thus not salaried employees. In an amicus brief, the Secretary of Labor interpreted its own regulation, stating that an employee’s pay is “subject to” deduction only if there is an actual practice of making such deductions or an employment policy that creates a “significant likelihood” of them for that class of employees. The Secretary argued that a general policy applicable to both salaried and non-salaried employees was insufficient to meet this standard.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must a court defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, presented in a legal brief, unless that interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation?
Yes. The Court held that the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occae
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Must a court defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, presented in a legal brief, unless that interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation?
Conclusion
*Auer* solidified the doctrine of judicial deference to an agency's interpretation of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i
Legal Rule
An agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation is controlling unless it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
Legal Analysis
The Court's decision rested on the principle of judicial deference to an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Secretary of Labor’s “salary-basis” test, which disallows disciplinary pay deductions