[1] Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In the first pass, the Court had vacated a previous decision by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court which relied on an interpretive ruling on the Fair Labor Standards Act provided by the United States Department of Labor to state that service advisors were not exempt, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit.

Respondents brought suit against the dealership under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking time-and-a-half overtime pay for working more than 40 hours per week.

In the dissent, Thomas agreed that the 2011 DOL ruling did not enjoy Chevron deference, but believed that the Supreme Court should evaluate the other merits of the case at that time, and in his opinion, the FLSA should be read to have service advisers as exempt from overtime as they are "primarily engaged in ... servicing automobiles", and suggested reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision on this basis.

[2][6] The Ninth Circuit still found against Encino during the rehearing, ruling that the service advisors were not exempt, basing their decision primarily on the legislative history of FLSA.

The court issued its ruling on April 2, 2018, in a 5–4 decision that reversed the Ninth Circuit and affirmed that service advisors are to be considered exempt under FLSA.