This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
I moved the following entry to here, because any effect of it is incomprehensible. What can be understood is that the supreme court reversed an interpretation, but it is unclear whether this original interpretation supported or opposed the exemption from overtime pay rules, and thus the stance of this ruling is also unclear. If the only conclusion is that further consideration is needed, I don't see any notable news at all. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Business and economy
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed an appeals court ruling that would have narrowly interpreted the auto salesman's exemption from overtime pay rules mandated by statute under rules promulgated by the U.S. Labor Department, remanding the matter for further consideration. (slip opinion).
Three points. First, the appellate court's ruling went against the auto dealerships, in favor of the employees seeking overtime pay. I thought the above wording made that clear. Feel free to tamper with it. Second, the Supreme Court in remanding to that appellate was clear that the appellate court's reasoning was inadequate, and bounced the matter back for further consideration. Third, that is notable BECAUSE it is indecisive. It shows that a court that has been short-handed for months now has had to come up with issue-avoiding opinions in order to avoid ideological 4-4 splits. This was a 2 - 4 - 2 split that would likely have been 4-4 had the bloc in the middle not agreed to mealy-mouthed indecisiveness. One result of the long empty seat is that auto dealerships still have no firm guidance in the question. I'll link you to a more detailed discussion at ScotusBlog. --Christofurio (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
