| Christensen v. Harris County | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 23, 2000 Decided May 1, 2000 | |
| Full case name | Edward Christensen, et al. v. Harris County, et al. |
| Citations | 529 U.S. 576 (more) 120 S. Ct. 1655; 146 L. Ed. 2d 621 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 158 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 1998) (affirmed) |
| Holding | |
| An opinion letter from the Department of Labor, stating that an employer had to get the employee to agree before the employee had to schedule time off, did not receive Chevron deference and instead should receive the less deferential standard of Skidmore v. Swift. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter; Scalia (except for Part III) |
| Concurrence | Souter |
| Concurrence | Scalia (except for Part III) |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq. | |
Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000), is a Supreme Court of the United States case holding that a county's policy of requiring employees to schedule time off to avoid accruing time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act.