Term: 2006
Docket: 06-593
Long Island Care At Home, Ltd., Et Al. v. Evelyn Coke
- Pro
06-593 LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME V. COKE DECISION BELOW:462 F3d 48 CERT. GRANTED 1/5/2007 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether the Second Circuit erred in refusing to give deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to a thirty-year- old Department of Labor regulation—a regulation that has twice been upheld by the Tenth Circuit—on the ground that, even though it was promulgated under express grants of legislative authority and after full notice-and-comment rulemaking, the regulation was contained in a subpart headed “Interpretations.” 2. Whether, in holding that a longstanding Department of Labor regulation was not persuasive and thus undeserving of any deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), the Second Circuit erred by failing to address the governing provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and by declining to give any weight to the Department’s interpretation of its own regulations. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-7666
In the case of Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Evelyn Coke (2006), home care worker Evelyn Coke sued her employer, Long Island Care at Home, for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA generally requires employers to pay employees time-and-a-half for work exceeding 40 hours per week but exempts those who provide "companionship services" to individuals unable to care for themselves. The Department of Labor interpreted this exemption as including workers employed by third-party agencies like Long Island Care at Home. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Long Island Care at Home and upheld that interpretation by deferring to the agency's expertise on labor standards matters. This ruling effectively excluded many home health aides from receiving federally mandated overtime pay.
In the dissenting opinion for Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Evelyn Coke (2006), Justice Breyer argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act's exemption of "companionship services" should not apply to employees of third-party agencies like home healthcare providers. He contended that Congress intended this exemption for casual babysitters and companions, not professional caregivers employed by profitable companies. The majority interpretation, he believed, would lead to an unfair result where these workers are denied minimum wage and overtime protections despite their critical role in providing care for elderly or disabled individuals. Furthermore, Justice Breyer criticized the Department of Labor’s inconsistent stance on this issue over time as it had previously proposed rules excluding such workers from the exemption but later reversed its position without clear explanation.
