Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil

Decision Date22 December 2014
Docket NumberCase No. 14–cv–967 RJL
Citation76 F.Supp.3d 138
PartiesHome Care Association of America, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David Weil, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Maurice Baskin, Littler Mendelson, P.C., William Alexander Dombi, Center for Health Care Law, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Julie Shana Saltman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

[Dkt. # # 9, 13]

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge

For over forty years, Congress has exempted third-party providers of home care services from having to pay either minimum or overtime wages to their employees who provide domestic companionship services to seniors and individuals with disabilities, or to pay overtime wages to live-in domestic service employees. On October 1, 2013, however, the Department of Labor issued a new regulation that takes these longstanding exemptions away from third-party employers.

Plaintiffs Home Care Association of America, the International Franchise Association, and National Association for Home Care & Hospice (together, plaintiffs) bring this action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 –06, against defendants David Weil, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division; Thomas E. Perez, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Labor; and the Department of Labor itself (together, defendants or “the Department”). Compl. ¶ 1 [Dkt. # 1]. Plaintiffs challenge this new Department of Labor regulation as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority inconsistent with Congress's language and intent. See generally Compl. Indeed, plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that if this new rule, which goes into effect on January 1, 2015, is allowed to stand, it will have a destabilizing impact on the entire home care industry and will adversely affect access to home care services for millions of the elderly and infirm. See Compl. ¶ 4.

Before me now are plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Counts I and II of their Complaint and defendants' motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Pls.' Mot. for Expedited Partial Summ. J. (“Pls.' Mot.”) [Dkt. # 9]; Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alternative Cross–Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.' Mot.”) [Dkt. # 13].1 After consideration of the parties' pleadings, the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the entire record in this case, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED, defendants' motion is DENIED, and the Department's revised Third Party Employer regulation scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2015, is VACATED.

BACKGROUND

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 –19, first passed in 1938, obligates employers to pay covered employees minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, id. §§ 206–07. Congress amended the FLSA in 1974 in part to extend certain labor protections, including the provision of minimum and overtime wages, to domestic service employees.2 Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, Pub.L. No. 93–259, § 7, 88 Stat. 55, 62; see 29 U.S.C. § 201 (finding that domestic service employment affects commerce); id. § 206(f) (extending minimum wage protection); id. § 207(l ) (extending overtime protections).

At the same time that it expanded FLSA coverage to domestic service employees, Congress included exemptions tied to certain types of domestic service work. Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, Pub.L. No. 93–259, § 7(b)(3)(4), 88 Stat. 55, 62. In particular, the statute explains that its overtime and minimum wage requirements shall not apply to “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).” 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15) (“companionship services exemption”). Nor shall its overtime requirements apply to “any employee who is employed in domestic service in a household and who resides in such household.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(21) (“live-in domestic employee exemption”). The exemptions at issue here have remained in place since the passage of the 1974 Amendments, though FLSA exemptions have been amended since that time. See, e.g., Act of Dec. 9, 1999, Pub.L. No. 106–151, § 1, 113 Stat. 1731 (defining “fire protection activities” to clarify an overtime exemption); Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104–188, § 2105(a), 110 Stat. 1755, 1929 (adding an exemption under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a) for certain computer professionals); Act of Sept. 30, 1994, Pub.L. No. 103–329, § 633(d), 108 Stat. 2382, 2428 (adding an overtime and minimum wage exemption for certain criminal investigators).

Following the passage of the 1974 Amendments, the Department of Labor promulgated implementing regulations in 1975. 40 Fed.Reg. 7404. Of interest here, the regulations focus on the employees and the nature of the employees' services. 40 Fed.Reg. 7405. The “term ‘domestic service employment’ refers to services of a household nature performed by an employee in or about a private home (permanent or temporary) of the person by whom he or she is employed.”3 40 Fed.Reg. 7405. Examples include cooks, housekeepers, caretakers, chauffeurs, and “babysitters employed on other than a casual basis.” Id.

“Companionship services” means “those services which provide fellowship, care, and protection for a person who, because of advanced age or physical or mental infirmity, cannot care for his or her own needs.” Id. Services “which require and are performed by trained personnel,” such as by nurses, do not qualify as “companionship services.” Id. Finally, “live-in” workers are described as [d]omestic service employees who reside in the household where they are employed.” 40 Fed.Reg. 7406.

The regulations further specify that the exemptions cover companions and live-in domestic service workers who are “employed by an employer or agency other than the family or household using their services.” 40 Fed.Reg. 7407. Although the final 1975 regulations acknowledge that the Department contemplated the question of whether employees of third parties should be exempt under the statute, the Secretary “concluded that these exemptions can be available to such third party employers since they apply to ‘any employee’ engaged ‘in’ the enumerated services.” 40 Fed.Reg. 7405. The final regulation elaborated, “This interpretation is more consistent with the statutory language and prior practices concerning other similarly worded exemptions.” Id. These regulations remained substantially unchanged until the rulemaking at issue here.4 See 29 C.F.R. §§ 552.3, 552.6, 552.102, 552.109 (current regulations).

In 2007, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the validity of the long-standing inclusion of employees paid by third parties within the companionship services exemption. In Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 127 S.Ct. 2339, 168 L.Ed.2d 54 (2007), a domestic worker who had been employed by a third party to provide companionship services sued her former employer, claiming she was entitled to minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA. With the United States defending the current regulation as amicus curiae, see Br. for the U.S. as Amicus Curiae Supporting Pet'rs, Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 127 S.Ct. 2339, the Court concluded that the third-party rule was valid and binding, Coke, 551 U.S. at 162, 127 S.Ct. 2339.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Coke, several bills were introduced in Congress seeking to abolish this exemption. See “Direct Care Job Quality Improvement Act of 2011,” H.R. 2341 and S. 1273, 112th Cong. (2011); “Direct Care Workforce Empowerment Act,” H.R. 5902 and S. 3696, 111th Cong. (2010); “Fair Home Health Care Act of 2007,” H.R. 3582 and S.2061, 110th Cong. (2007). Notwithstanding efforts by legislators in the majority party in both the House and Senate in three consecutive Congresses (110th , 111th , and 112th ),5 none of their bills ever generated sufficient support to get out of committee and to the floor of either house of Congress. See generally Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/ (searchable bill histories).

Undaunted by the Supreme Court's decision in Coke, and the utter lack of Congressional support to withdraw this exemption, the Department of Labor amazingly decided to try to do administratively what others had failed to achieve in either the Judiciary or the Congress. The Department, in December 2011, published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise the FLSA domestic service regulations. The Proposed Rule reworked the definitions of certain terms, including “domestic service employment” and “companionship services,” and limited the companionship and live-in employee exemptions to workers employed by the family or household using the services, thereby excluding third-party employers from the exemptions. 76 Fed.Reg. 81,190 –98, 81,244.

After receiving over 26,000 comments, 78 Fed.Reg. 60,460, including comments from plaintiffs, see J.A., Tabs D–J [Dkt. # # 17–4–17–10], the Department published the Final Rule on October 1, 2013, 78 Fed.Reg. 60,454 (“new rule” or “new regulation”). This new rule is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2015.6 Id. Of relevance here, of course, is the new rule's effect on the application of the companionship services and live-in domestic service employee exemptions.7 In a section entitled “Third Party Employment,” it states that [t]hird party employers of employees engaged in companionship services ... may not avail themselves of the minimum wage and overtime exemption” provided by the statute, and [t]hird party employers of employees engaged in live-in domestic service employment ... may not avail themselves of the overtime exemption” provided by the statute. 78 Fed.Reg. 60,557.

P...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Carmack v. Park Cities Healthcare, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3500-D
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • July 25, 2018
    ...the third party provision were challenged and vacated by the District of Columbia. See321 F.Supp.3d 703 Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil , 76 F.Supp.3d 138, 147-48 (D.D.C. 2014) ; Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil , 78 F.Supp.3d 123, 130 (D.D.C. 2015). On appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacated the dis......
  • Kinkead v. Humana at Home, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • March 31, 2020
    ...but the D.C. Circuit eventually reversed the district court's decision in August 2015. See ibid. (citing Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil , 76 F. Supp. 3d 138 (D.D.C. 2014), rev'd and remanded , 799 F.3d 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ). While the regulation remained in limbo, defendants did not gener......
  • Brittmon v. Upreach, LLC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • January 23, 2018
    ...its finding that the Rule was an unreasonable interpretation of federal law and was arbitrary and capricious. Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil, 76 F.Supp.3d 138, 147–48 (D.D.C. 2014). The DOL appealed, and on August 21, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the district court's ruling and vac......
  • Alves v. Affiliated Care of Putnam, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 30, 2022
    ...opinions and orders vacating the rule's revised third-party regulation and revised definition of companionship services, respectively. See id. at 148 (“[T]he States Department of Labor's Third Party Employer regulation, promulgated in 78 Fed.Reg. 60, 557 and to be codified at 29 C.F.R. § 55......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT