Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt
United States Supreme Court case
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. 39 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, regardless of income level, workers are not considered salaried unless the conditions set out in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 are met.
Background
Michael Hewitt was a toolpusher and a supervisor on oil rigs for Helix Energy Solutions Group from 2014 to 2017. He was paid over $200,000 each year he worked for the company, at a flat daily rate. Hewitt was fired from the company in 2017, and the reasons are in dispute. He then filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against Helix, asserting he was entitled to overtime pay. Various FLSA regulations exempt employees from overtime if they (1) perform managerial duties, (2) earn $100,000 or more each year, and (3) receive a weekly salary of $455 or higher on a salary basis. Hewitt fulfilled the first two conditions, but not the third, as he was paid daily. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas rejected Hewitt's claim, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in a 2–1 opinion.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt” as united States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as united States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q112252112. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2023, 1938, 2014 and 2017.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt primary sources, Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt archive and Helix research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.