## Facts

- Deputy sheriffs employed by Harris County accrued compensatory time off (“comp time”) in lieu of cash overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- Concerned about large comp-time balances and potential mandatory cash payouts, the County implemented a policy requiring employees to schedule and take time off to reduce accrued comp time.
- The deputies contended the FLSA prohibited compelled use of comp time absent an agreement authorizing forced use.
- The County sought guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and the Acting Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division issued an opinion letter concluding the policy violated the FLSA.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the deputies and declared the policy unlawful; the Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding the FLSA did not prohibit the policy.

## Issues

1. Whether the FLSA prohibits a public employer from requiring employees to use accrued comp time in the absence of an agreement authorizing compelled use, in light of 29 U.S.C. § 207(o)(5).
2. Whether a DOL opinion letter interpreting the FLSA is entitled to Chevron deference or only Skidmore respect.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Harris County.
- The Court held that neither the FLSA nor its implementing regulations prohibit a public employer from compelling employees to use accrued comp time.
- The Court held that DOL opinion letters lack the force of law and therefore do not receive Chevron deference; they receive only Skidmore respect to the extent they are persuasive.
- Applying Skidmore, the Court found the DOL’s opinion unpersuasive because it conflicted with the statutory text and structure.

## Legal Principles

- Section 207(o)(5) limits when a public employer may deny an employee’s request to use comp time (only if granting the request would “unduly disrupt” operations); it does not restrict an employer’s ability to require employees to use comp time.
- A statutory provision addressing employee-requested comp time use does not, without more, create a negative implication barring employer-mandated use.
- Chevron deference applies only when Congress has delegated to the agency authority to make rules with the force of law and the agency interpretation was issued pursuant to that authority.
- Informal agency interpretations (including opinion letters) generally lack the force of law and are evaluated under Skidmore based on their persuasive power.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Harris County’s compelled-use comp-time policy, reasoning that the FLSA guarantees employees the ability to use comp time upon request absent undue disruption but does not forbid employers from requiring its use, and it clarified that informal DOL opinion letters are not controlling interpretations and receive only persuasive weight under Skidmore.


Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000)