Supreme Court Decides Unanimously to Uphold FLSA Homecare Worker Regulation

The United State Supreme Court issued today a unanimous ruling, per Justice Breyer, in the case of Long Island Care at Home v. Coke, No. 06-593 (U.S. June 11, 2007) (written about previously here and here). At issue, was the validity of exempting homecare healthworkers from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Second Circuit had ruled the standard promulgated by the Department of Labor was invalid, but the Supreme Court reversed.  Some highlights from the opinion:

A provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from the statute’s minimum wage and maximum hours rules "any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary [of Labor])."” 29 U. S. C. §213(a)(15). A Department of Labor regulation (labeled an “interpretation) says that this statutory exemption includes those companionship” workers who “are employed by an employer or agency other than the family or household using their services.” 29 CFR §552.109(a) (2006). The question before us is whether, in light of the statute’s text and history, and a different (apparently conflicting) regulation, the Department’s regulation is valid and binding. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984). We conclude that it is.

***************************************************************************************
The statutory language refers broadly to “domestic service employment and to “companionship services.” It expressly instructs the agency to work out the details of those broad definitions. And whether to include workers paid by third parties within the scope of the definitions is one of those details.

***************************************************************************************
When promulgating the rule, the agency used full public notice-and-comment procedures, which under the Administrative Procedure Act an agency need not use when producing an “interpretive” rule. 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A) (exempting “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” from notice-and-comment procedures). Each time the Department has considered amending the rule, it has similarly used full notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. 58 Fed. Reg. 69310 (1993); 60 Fed. Reg. 46797 (1995); 66 Fed. Reg. 5485 (2001). And for the past 30 years, according to the Department’s Advisory Memorandum (and not disputed by respondent), the Department has treated the third-party regulation like the others, i.e., as a legally binding exercise of its rulemaking authority.

This is a sweeping victory for the Department of Labor and the employer and an equally devastating loss to Coke and those who believe home healthcare workers provided by third parties should not be exempted from the FLSA.

Expect this battle to now move back to the DOL, where advocates for homecare health workers will continue to try to change this DOL regulation.

PS