29 C.F.R. § 552.106

Companionship services

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The term “companionship services” is defined in § 552.6. Persons who provide care and protection for babies and young children who do not have illnesses, injuries, or disabilities are considered babysitters, not companions. The companion must perform the services with respect to the elderly person or person with an illness, injury, or disability and not generally to other persons. The “casual” limitation does not apply to companion services.

[78 FR 60557, Oct. 1, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2016 · leading case: Terwilliger v. Home of Hope, Inc., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (N.D. Okla. 1998).
Terwilliger v. Home of Hope, Inc., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (N.D. Okla. 1998). “Defendant bases this construction upon the definition of ’“companionship services” in 29 C.F.R. § 552.106 , and the parallel definition of babysitting services in 29 C.”
McCune v. Oregon Senior Servs. Div., 643 F. Supp. 1444 (D. Or. 1986). “The Amendments create the exclusion for “[a]ny 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____” Casual refers only to babysitting.”
McCune v. Oregon Senior Servs. Div., 894 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1990). “Appellants argue that the “casual” qualification was intended to apply to companions as well as baby-sitters. The Secretary’s regulation defining companionship services provides, “[T]he ‘casual’ limitation does not apply to companionship services.”
Brown v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., 171 F. Supp. 3d 696 (N.D. Ohio 2016). “” 29 C.F.R. § 552.106 . A Department of Labor opinion letter from March 16, 1995, referenced by both Plaintiff and Defendant, reads in part: [I]t is our opinion that such activities as cleaning the patient’s bedroom, bathroom or kitchen, picking up groceries, medicine, and dry…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.