Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Overtime pay for a third-party home care provider’s live-in workers; Exemptions; 29 USC § 213; Pickens v Hamilton-Ryker IT Sols, LLC; Regulation of the home care industry; The “Live-In Exemption” (29 USC § 213(b)(21); The Companionship Services Exemption (§ 213(a)(15)); The 2013 Third-Party Regulation (29 CFR §§ 552.109(a) & (c)); The Companionship Services Definition (§ 552.6); Validity under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); Loper Bright Enters v Raimondo; “Express delegations”; Whether the express delegation in the Companionship Services Exemption extended to the Live-In Exemption; Long Island Care at Home, Ltd v Coke; Standing to challenge the companionship services definition

In this enforcement proceeding against defendants-Americare Healthcare Services and its owner, the court held that the FLSA’s 2013 Third-Party Regulation (related to third-party employers of home care workers and overtime requirements) was a valid exercise of expressly delegated authority. It also held that neither defendant had standing to challenge § 552.6’s definition of “companionship services.” Americare is a third-party provider of home care services. All of its home care workers are live-in workers. Most of them are hired to serve their family members in their family homes. Plaintiff-Department of Labor brought this proceeding asserting that defendants failed to compensate their employees in accordance with the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements for a three-year period. “Under a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor in 2013, third-party employers of home care workers are not permitted to claim either the ‘Companionship Services Exemption’ or the ‘Live-In Exemption’ to the” requirements. Defendants argued that this regulation was invalid under the APA. The district court granted plaintiff summary judgment. On appeal, the court reviewed the two exemptions. Defendants conceded that the Companionship Services Exemption contained an “express delegation of authority to the Secretary,” and the court found that Coke “clearly compels that conclusion.” It further noted that there “is a significant overlap” between the two exemptions. The court held that the express delegation language in the Companionship Services Exemption created “a clear textual link between the exemptions, extending the discretion afforded to the agency in the Companionship Services Exemption to the Live-In Exemption insofar as they cover the overtime pay of the same employees: live-in companionship service workers.” And applying Loper Bright’s three-step framework, the court held that “the 2013 Third-Party Regulation is a valid exercise of the Department’s expressly delegated authority under the Companionship Services Exemption, including the limited application of that authority to the Live-In Exemption” It also upheld the district court’s ruling that defendants lacked standing to challenge the Companionship Services Definition because their overtime obligations were “traceable to the 2013 Third-Party Regulation (which prevents them from availing themselves of the exemption), not to the Companionship Services Definition.” Affirmed.