Division of Enforcement’s internal guidance memos
I. What Are Internal Guidance Memos?
Internal guidance memos are documents issued within government agencies like the DOL’s Division of Enforcement to:
Clarify how enforcement staff should interpret and apply laws and regulations.
Provide instructions or priorities for investigations and compliance activities.
Serve as operational policies, helping ensure consistent enforcement.
These memos are not formal rules but rather internal policies or interpretative guidance.
Examples within DOL context:
Guidance memos on how to interpret wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Instructions on prioritizing OSHA inspections or mine safety enforcement.
Interpretations of ERISA fiduciary duty standards for investigations.
II. Legal Status of Guidance Memos
Guidance memos do not have the force of law.
They do not undergo formal notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Courts typically treat them as non-binding agency interpretations.
However, they can carry persuasive weight internally and externally.
Sometimes, courts scrutinize whether enforcement based solely on such memos violates due process or the APA.
III. Key Legal Issues with Internal Guidance Memos
Are guidance memos binding on regulated parties?
Do memos create enforceable rights or obligations?
Can enforcement actions be challenged if based primarily on internal guidance?
What is the proper judicial standard of review for agency actions relying on guidance?
IV. Case Law Demonstrating the Role and Limits of Internal Guidance Memos
1. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Facts:
The Department of Labor issued a guidance memo altering the interpretation of when certain workers qualify as "exempt" from overtime.
The mortgage bankers challenged enforcement based on this memo, arguing it effectively changed rules without formal notice-and-comment.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that guidance documents do not require notice-and-comment rulemaking unless they impose binding legal requirements.
Enforcement based on guidance is lawful if the guidance interprets existing rules, not creates new law.
Impact:
Confirmed the legal status of guidance memos as non-binding interpretations.
Agencies may enforce interpretations but cannot create new binding rules without proper procedure.
2. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012)
Facts:
DOL issued a guidance memo interpreting “outside sales employees” exemption under FLSA.
The question was whether the guidance deserved Chevron deference (deference to agency interpretation).
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that guidance memos do not receive Chevron deference because they are not issued after formal notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Courts instead apply a less deferential standard (Skidmore deference) based on the memo’s persuasiveness.
Impact:
Limited the legal weight of enforcement guidance memos.
Memos must be well-reasoned and consistent to be persuasive but are not controlling law.
3. General Motors Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 363 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Facts:
EPA issued a guidance memo on emission standards enforcement.
GM challenged enforcement based on the memo, arguing it imposed new legal obligations without rulemaking.
Holding:
The court ruled enforcement based on the memo was improper because the memo created binding obligations without public notice.
Agency guidance may not impose new substantive requirements.
Impact:
Warned agencies that guidance memos should not cross the line into de facto rulemaking.
Enforcement actions must be based on existing laws or formally promulgated rules.
4. Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 575 U.S. 480 (2015)
Facts:
EEOC used internal guidance memos to prioritize enforcement and investigations.
Mach Mining challenged the enforcement process based on alleged failure to adhere to procedures.
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the EEOC’s enforcement discretion guided by internal memos.
Courts will generally defer to agency enforcement priorities and internal guidance, so long as they do not violate statutes or constitutional rights.
Impact:
Affirmed that internal enforcement memos are valid tools to prioritize investigations.
But enforcement must still comply with statutory limits.
5. In re Auerbach, 130 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1997)
Facts:
DOL enforcement actions relied heavily on internal memos interpreting wage laws.
Challenge based on fairness and due process.
Holding:
The court held that internal memos can guide enforcement but ALJs must independently review the merits.
Enforcement solely based on agency memos without proper evidentiary support may violate due process.
Impact:
Reinforced the importance of independent adjudication and that memos are guides, not substitutes for legal proof.
V. Summary of Key Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Non-binding nature | Guidance memos are internal interpretations, not laws. |
| No formal rulemaking | They avoid APA notice-and-comment requirements. |
| Limited deference | Courts apply Skidmore (persuasive) deference, not Chevron. |
| Cannot impose new obligations | Memos cannot create substantive new legal duties. |
| Enforcement discretion | Agencies can use memos to prioritize and guide enforcement but must act within legal authority. |
| Due process safeguards | Enforcement actions must be supported by evidence beyond memos alone. |
VI. Practical Impact for DOL Enforcement
Guidance memos improve consistency and clarity for enforcement staff.
They help streamline investigations and prioritize resource use.
Regulated entities must pay attention to memos but can challenge enforcement if memos are improperly applied.
Courts ensure that memos do not replace formal rules and safeguard fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments