(a) Third party employers of employees engaged in companionship services within the meaning of § 552.6 may not avail themselves of the minimum wage and overtime exemption provided by section 13(a)(15) of the Act, even if the employee is jointly employed by the individual or member of the family or household using the services. However, the individual or member of the family or household, even if considered a joint employer, is still entitled to assert the exemption, if the employee meets all of the requirements of § 552.6.
(b) Employees who are engaged in providing babysitting services and who are employed by an employer or agency other than the family or household using their services are not employed on a “casual basis” for purposes of the section 13(a)(15) exemption. Such employees are engaged in this occupation as a vocation.
(c) Third party employers of employees engaged in live-in domestic service employment within the meaning of § 552.102 may not avail themselves of the overtime exemption provided by section 13(b)(21) of the Act, even if the employee is jointly employed by the individual or member of the family or household using the services. However, the individual or member of the family or household, even if considered a joint employer, is still entitled to assert the exemption.
[40 FR 7405, Feb. 20, 1975, as amended at 78 FR 60557, Oct. 1, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 958 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 10× “[7] IV Bayada next argues that the domestic service exemption in the MWA should be construed in pari materia with the FLSA, allowing third party employers to claim the exemption for its employees pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (a). See n. 3 supra. Statutes are read in pari…”
Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007).
· cites it 2× “” 29 CFR § 552.109 (a) (2006). The question before us is whether, in light of the statute’s text and history, and a different (apparently conflicting) regulation, the Department’s regulation is valid and binding.”
Home Care Ass'n v. David Weil, 799 F.3d 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (a), (c) (2014). The regulations also defined the term “companionship services” to mean “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…”
Lewis-Ramsey v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y, 215 F. Supp. 3d 805 (S.D. Iowa 2016).
· cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (a). In October 2013, the DOL issued a Final Rule amending the companionship exemption “to better reflect Congressional intent given the changes to the home care industry and workforce since [the time of the 1974 Amendments].”
Brittmon v. Upreach, LLC, 285 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Ohio 2018).
“29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (a), (c) (2014). In 2013, the DOL reversed course, adopting a new rule (the "Final Rule" or "Rule") that brought domestic service employees of third-parties within the protections of the FLSA.”
Carol King v. West Virginia's Choice, Inc., 766 S.E.2d 387 (W. Va. 2014).
· cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (a) (providing that “[e]m-ployees who are engaged in providing companionship services, as defined in § 552.”
Hypolite v. Health Care Servs. of New York Inc., 256 F. Supp. 3d 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
“After a notice and comment period, in October 2013, the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued new interpretive regulations — specifically, the “Third Party Employer” regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (2015), and a revised definition of “Companionship services,” 29 C.”
Shillingford v. Astra Home Care, Inc., 293 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D. Ill. 2018).
“552); see also 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (2015). As explained in the Court's January 4, 2018 Order, the Court adopts the reasoning of other courts in this Circuit to consider the issue and finds that this amendment took effect on January 1, 2015.”
Rawls v. Augustine Home Health Care, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 298 (D. Maryland 2007).
“3 (emphasis added); see also 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (extending the companionship services exemption to those employed by an employer or agency other than the family); Long Island Care at Home, Ltd.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a) — 3 cases
Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 958 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
“[7] IV Bayada next argues that the domestic service exemption in the MWA should be construed in pari materia with the FLSA, allowing third party employers to claim the exemption for its employees pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 (a). See n. 3 supra. Statutes are read in pari…”
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.