« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »
Supreme Court hears FLSA case
April 16, 2007 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
Today the US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Long Island Care at Home Ltd v. Coke.
The 2nd Circuit refused to enforce a 30-year-old Department of Labor regulation that exempts certain home care workers even though they are actually employed and paid by an outside agency. Now the Supreme Court will decide whether DOL's regulation is valid.
[My prediction is that the Court will hold that the regulation is valid.]
Coke sued her employer - Long Island Care at Home Ltd. - under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claiming entitlement to minimum wage and overtime. The trial court granted the employer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The 2nd Circuit reversed in part; the US Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Department of Labor's December 2005 Wage and Hour Advisory Memorandum; the 2nd Circuit adhered to its original decision. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the 2nd Circuit decision.
FLSA Section 213(a)(15) exempts employees engaged in "babysitting services" and "companionship services." The exemption applies to "any employee employed on a casual basis in domestic service employment to provide babysitting services or 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]) ...." Department of Labor (DOL) regulation 29 CFR Section 552.109(a) applies the exemption to "[e]mployees who are engaged in providing companionship services, as defined in Section 552.6, and who are employed by an employer or agency other than the family or household using their services."
The 2nd Circuit held that this regulation is not entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), because it is an interpretive rather than a legislative regulation. The 2nd Circuit also held that this regulation is not entitled to deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), because it was inconsistent with Congress' purpose and with other regulations and with previous DOL positions, and insufficiently explained by DOL.
|
|
BCI Coca-Cola v EEOC dismissed
April 11, 2007 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
One of the biggest employment law cases of the year will be dismissed from the US Supreme Court's docket by agreement of the parties.
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling v. EEOC [Details]
BCI discharged Peters, who is black, for insubordination. EEOC claimed that BCI discriminated on the basis of race because similarly situated white and Hispanic employees were treated less harshly. The discharge decision was made by a human resources manager based on information provided by Peters' immediate supervisor plus a review of Peters' personnel record. The HR manager did not know Peters was black. The supervisor not only knew Peters’ race but allegedly had a history of treating black employees unfavorably and making disparaging racial remarks in the workplace. The 10th Circuit held that this case should go to trial.
The case was to be argued on April 18. That argument will be cancelled.
Thanks to, and more details from, SCOTUSblog - Job bias case to be dismissed.
|
|
Supreme Court cases pending
April 08, 2007 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
Four employment law cases are pending at the US Supreme Court.
Oral arguments have been held in the first two. Arguments in the second two will be held April 16 and 18.
Here they are, with links to Supreme Court Times's details, blog commentaries, and predictions.
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co (Title VII: Statute of limitations for discriminatory decision followed by periodic paychecks) [Blog] Predicted winner: Goodyear
- Davenport v. Washington Education Association (Fair share union fees; statute requiring "opt in" before union can spend on political matters) [Blog] Predicted winner: Davenport
- Long Island Care at Home Ltd v. Coke (FLSA: Validity of DOL rule exempting home care workers who are employed by an outside agency) [Blog] Predicted winner: Long Island Care at Home
- BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Title VII: Liability when unbiased HR official relies on information from allegedly biased supervisor) [Blog] Predicted winner: EEOC
|
|
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
