Andryeyeva v. N.Y. Health Care, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 March 2019
• Docket Number: No. 11, No. 12,11, No. 12
• Citation: 100 N.Y.S.3d 612,124 N.E.3d 162,33 N.Y.3d 152
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Lilya ANDRYEYEVA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK HEALTH CARE, INC., d/b/a New York Home Attendant Agency, et al., Appellants. Adriana Moreno, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents, v. Future Care Health Services, Inc., et al., Appellants.

33 N.Y.3d 152

124 N.E.3d 162

100 N.Y.S.3d 612

Lilya ANDRYEYEVA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents,

v.NEW YORK HEALTH CARE, INC., d/b/a New York Home Attendant Agency, et al., Appellants.

Adriana Moreno, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents,

v.Future Care Health Services, Inc., et al., Appellants.

No. 11, No. 12

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 26, 2019

OPINION OF THE COURT

RIVERA, J..

The common issue presented in these joint appeals is whether, pursuant to the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order), an employer must pay its home health care aide employees for each hour of a 24–hour shift. DOL has interpreted its Wage Order to require payment for at least 13 hours of a 24–hour shift if the employee is allowed a sleep break of at least 8 hours—and actually receives five hours of uninterrupted sleep—and three hours of meal break time. DOL's interpretation of its Wage Order does not conflict with the promulgated language, nor has DOL adopted an irrational or unreasonable construction, and so the Appellate Division erred in rejecting that interpretation. Therefore, we reverse the Appellate Division orders and remit for consideration of alternative grounds for class certification for alleged violations of New York's Labor Law, inclusive of defendants' alleged systematic denial of wages earned and due, unaddressed by the courts below because of their erroneous rejection of DOL's interpretation.

I.

Statutory and regulatory background

New York's Labor Law requires that all employees be paid a minimum wage for each hour worked ( Labor Law § 652 ). The Legislature passed the Minimum Wage Act (the "Act") in 1937 to ensure that workers "receive wages sufficient to provide adequate maintenance and to protect their health" (L 1937, ch 276, § 551).

In 1971, the Legislature extended the Act to cover home health care aides living outside the employer's home (L 1971, ch 1165, § 1), and in 1978 again amended the Act to require a minimum wage for "each hour worked" (L 1978, ch 747, § 1).

The Act delegates to the Commissioner of Labor¹ the authority to set that minimum wage by issuing "wage orders" (L 1937, ch 276, §§ 555–557), which are promulgated as regulations in accordance with the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) and the dictates of the Labor Law (see Labor Law § 659 ). The Commissioner has exercised this statutory authority periodically by publishing the minimum wage rate for employment in five industries, subclassified by occupation, employer size, and geographic location (12 NYCRR ch II, subch B, F).

Since 1972, home health care aides have come under DOL's Minimum Wage Order Number 11 for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations (12 NYCRR part 142), which applies to all non-exempt employees who are not subject to a different wage order (i.e., those not in the hospitality industry, the building services industry, or farm workers) (see 12 NYCRR 142–2.14 ; DOL, Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations at 1 [effective Dec. 31, 2016] ["This Part shall apply to all employees, as such term is defined in this Part, except: (a) employees who are covered by minimum wage standards in any other minimum wage order promulgated by the commissioner; and (b) employees of a nonprofitmaking institution which has elected to be exempt from coverage under a minimum wage order, pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 652 of the Minimum Wage Act"] ).

The Wage Order states, in relevant part:

"The minimum wage shall be paid for the time an employee is permitted to work, or is required to be available for work at a place prescribed by the employer, and shall include time spent in traveling to the extent that such traveling is part of the duties of the employee. However, a residential employee—one who lives on the premises of the employer—shall not be deemed to be permitted to work or required to be available for work:

(1) during [the employee's] normal sleeping hours solely because [the employee] is required to be on call during such hours; or

(2) at any other time when [the employee] is free to leave the place of employment" ( 12 NYCRR 142–2.1 [b] ).

In March 2010, DOL issued an opinion letter, responding to questions about the application of the Wage Order to home health care aides, including the calculation of hours worked when assigned to a patient's home, referred to as a "live-in employee." The letter distinguishes between employees who are "on call"—meaning employees who are considered to be working during all hours they are required to remain in a particular work area, including when they are waiting to perform their services—and employees who are "subject to call" such that they are able to leave the work area between assignments and are paid only for work performed.

The letter further acknowledges that a "residential employee," defined in the Wage Order as a person who lives on the premises of the employer, is deemed not to be working during normal sleeping hours solely because they are "on call," or when free to leave the place of employment. The letter goes on to explain that DOL treats all "live-in" employees the same when determining the number of hours worked, regardless of whether they are residential employees. Specifically, the letter states that

"it is the opinion and policy of this Department that live-in employees must be paid not less than for thirteen hours per twenty-four hour period provided that they are afforded at least eight hours for sleep and actually receive five hours of uninterrupted sleep, and that they are afforded three hours for meals. If an aide does not receive five hours of uninterrupted sleep, the eight-hour sleep period exclusion is not applicable and the employee must be paid for all eight hours. Similarly, if the aide is not actually afforded three work-free hours for meals, the three-hour meal period exclusion is not applicable" (Opinion Letter from Maria L. Colavito, Counsel, DOL, Mar. 11, 2010).

The letter explains that home health care aides assigned to a 24–hour shift at a patient's home are live-in, non-residential employees, who must be paid for at least 13 hours of work. Under DOL's interpretation of the Wage Order, the remaining 11 hours of the shift are not included in the calculation of compensable hours because this time is allocated for eight hours of sleep and three hours of meal time for the employee. If the home health care aide does not receive a minimum of five hours uninterrupted sleep and work-free meal breaks, the employer must pay for every hour of a 24–hour shift—meaning the employer cannot exclude 11 hours from the compensable hours total—because when the aide is not provided with actual and substantial duty-free periods for personal use, the employer rather than the employee benefits from the time and the employer must pay for profiting off the employee's labor.

The March 2010 opinion letter, issued prior to the filing of plaintiffs' underlying actions and specifically addressed to the status of home health care aides, is only a recent articulation in a long line of official statements by DOL explaining its general policy towards compensable work for 24–hour shift employees. For decades, DOL has consistently interpreted the Wage Order as applied across occupations to account for substantial periods of employee inactivity during a 24–hour shift when an employee is able to utilize the time for personal matters. As far back as 1969, DOL determined that, in the case of employees "required to be on duty for a 24 hour period," it would consider "up to 8 hours of sleeping time ... as not being hours worked" within the meaning of the Wage Order, if certain conditions were met (DOL, Mem from George Ostrow to Daniel A. Daly [Oct. 27, 1969] ). The exclusion would only apply if there was "express or implied agreement" to exclude time for sleep, the employer provided "adequate sleeping facilities for an uninterrupted night's sleep," the employee actually received five hours of sleep, and interruptions to perform duties were considered work time (id. ).

In 1998, the Commissioner expressly addressed home health care aides, in response to a letter from an employee of a home health care provider and explained that, for "live-in" home health care aides, including those working an on-site 24–hour shift:

"it is the policy of the [DOL] that such persons must be paid for no less than 13 hours of each 24–hour day they are required to remain ‘on call’ in the home of the person receiving their services—provided that they are afforded eight hours for sleep and actually receive five hours of uninterrupted sleep and that they are afforded three hours for meals. If a ‘live-in’ home health aide does not receive five hours of uninterrupted sleep the eight hour sleep period exclusion is not applicable, and the home health aide must be paid for all eight hours in question. Similarly, if a ‘live-in’ home health aide is not actually afforded three work-free hours for meals, the three-hour meal period exclusion is not applicable" (DOL, Letter from James J. McGowan [Oct. 27, 1998] ).

This interpretation of the Wage Order is similar to the federal government's guidance on the minimum compensable hours for 24–hour shift employees under the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA). According to the United States Department of Labor, when an employee is "required to be on call for 24 hours a day," but has "a normal night's sleep" and "ample time in which to eat ... meals," it may be "justif[ied to conclude] that the employee is not working at all times during which [the employee] is subject to call in the event of an emergency" (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Interpretative Bulletin No. 13: Hours Worked – Determination of Hours for Which Employees are Entitled to Compensation Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [July 1939] at 4). Under current...