« BCI Coca-Cola v EEOC dismissed | Main | Wal-Mart wins religion case »
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 | Main | Wal-Mart wins religion case »
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
