Justices to Hear Case on Wages of Home Aides

Source: N Y TIMES

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: March 25, 2007

Evelyn Coke sat in her wood-frame home in Corona, Queens, a hobbled figure, not realizing that this is supposed to be her moment in the spotlight.

For 20 years, she had cared for clients in their homes, bathing them, cooking for them, helping them dress and take their medications. But now, suffering from kidney failure, she is too ill to work.

Her mind and memory are not what they once were, she acknowledges, and as a result she is hazy about the important events that will take place on April 16. On that day, the Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case in which Ms. Coke, a 73-year-old immigrant from Jamaica, is the sole plaintiff.


Evelyn Coke at home in Queens with her son Michael.


She is challenging Labor Department regulations that say home care attendants, who number 1.4 million, are not covered by federal minimum-wage and overtime laws.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/nyregion/25aides.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Before 1974, home care aides were generally covered by minimum-wage and overtime laws if they were employed by agencies. (Aides hired directly by families were not covered and will remain exempt from overtime regardless of the outcome of Ms. Coke’s case.)

In amending the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1974, Congress extended minimum-wage and overtime coverage to household workers like maids and cooks but said that baby sitters and “companions” for the elderly and infirm would be exempt.

When the Labor Department first proposed regulations to enforce the changes in the law, it said that home care workers employed by agencies should continue to get overtime. But the department reversed itself in 1975, saying Congress had not intended to allow those workers overtime when it created the exemptions the year before.

But the Court of Appeals, sitting in Manhattan, wrote, “It is implausible, to say the least, that Congress, in wishing to expand F.L.S.A. coverage, would have wanted the Department of Labor to eliminate coverage for employees of third-party employers who had previously been covered.”

Those urging the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling say the Court of Appeals failed to show proper deference to the Labor Department’s decision-making authority.

home health aides. It's unbelievable they're not covered by minimum wage laws.

That is hard work and not the most pleasant. Not covered by federal minimum wage?
This better make the news.

'managers' so they can get out of paying OT. The Health Care business sucks these days, more than ever before.