Well, you'd be correct, except that that isn't what the Supreme Court was doing in this case. For better or worse, matters of "private sector remunerations," including questions concerning which employees are, and are not, exempt from overtime pay requirements, are determined by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and its implementing regulations -- i.e., federal law. You do know that, right? I mean, you've been in the workforce, haven't you?
The issue of "private sector remunerations" has been subject to federal law since the effing New Deal. That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on one's point of view, but it is a thing, and has been for decades now.
Anyway, this case involved the proper interpretation of federal regulations as they applied to the respondent's particular situation. That's why the Supreme Court had the case in the first place. There had been a split in the federal judicial circuits over this issue, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve it.
By the way, in finding for the respondent Hewitt, the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had heard the case en banc and which had held for Hewitt by a 12-6 vote.
Hmm . . . imagine a world where people actually had some understanding of the things they were opining about before they formed, and offered, their opinions.
Well-stated and well-deserved slap-down of conservative ignorance.
So then from your perch, whatever deliberations & rulings made by SCOTUS are perfectly okay and justifiable — perhaps like that which led to the federal enforcement of Obama’s ACA? And I suppose you also believe SCOTUS was correct in its handling of the Roe v Wade case — which many argue should have remained a states issue. Ironic that SCOTUS effectively reversed itself handing the abortion issue back to the states. One might ‘opine’ that SCOTUS had no business deciding that case in the first place — imagine a world with such uniformed opining.
Regarding the many factors related to workforce payroll/remunerations, I’m well aware of both the federal & state laws, requirements, scheduling, and enforcement. But I appreciate your sincere curiosity — you’re quite the sweetheart with your assuming, backhanded questions.
Imagine a world where people actually had some understanding of another’s experiences before volunteering gratuitous insults.
FRegards