FACT SHEET
Long Island Care at Home & Osborne vs. Evelyn Coke
- What are the main facts of the case?
Evelyn Coke was a home care worker for 20 years. Her employer, Long Island Care at Home, a small home care agency employing about 50 home care workers paid her below minimum wage and denied her overtime pay.
- What law permits employers to deny overtime and minimum wage?
When Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), it exempted, among others, “domestic workers” and workers that provide “companionship services” to “individuals who “because of “age or infirmity are unable to care for themselves." The Department of Labor applied this exception to home care agencies employing workers that provide care in people’s homes. 29 CFR § 552.109 (a).
Ms. Coke filed a lawsuit challenging the exception under the law, and the Department’s interpretation of it. After Ms Coke won in federal court, the Department of Labor issued an “advisory memo” restating its view and asked the Supreme Court to enforce its rule.
- What did the Supreme Court Decide?
The Supreme Court decided that the Department of Labor’s interpretation of the congressional law is valid. In doing so, the court reaffirmed what has been the status quo since the inception of the FLSA; namely, direct care workers working in people’s homes are exempted from minimum wage and overtime protections even if these workers are employed by an agency to perform such work. The difference is that most states do in fact pay the basic minimum wage. States are, in fact, free to set wages that go beyond the minimum wage and states can provide more protection than the Federal law provides.
- What has changed in regard to national or state policy because of the Supreme Court’s decision?
Nothing. The status quo remains in place.
- What does the Supreme Court decision accomplish?
The Supreme Court decision reminds us of the cold harsh reality that our long-term care system is under-funded and unfair. Consumers, direct care workers, and employers each struggle to receive, provide or perform care without adequate resources.
It is a strong reminder that we need to focus all of our energy on forming a strong coalition to bring every constituent together and advocate for substantive reform through these collaborative coalitional and worker association efforts.
- What impact would authorizing overtime pay have on the long-term care system?
While the employer in the Coke case was paying less than minimum wage, that rarely happens. Most providers pay at least minimum wage -- though not enough to make home care a family-sustaining job.
However, many employers do not pay for overtime, so changing the law would require states to pay more for care that is already being provided.
- The state perspective. Some states have their own overtime protection laws to cover home care workers. But those that follow the federal ruling might cut back on the number of hours provided if the federal ruling was changed, to keep from further straining their budgets.
- The employer perspective. Home care employers argue that changing the ruling would put the home care industry out of business, since Medicaid rates are too low to cover overtime pay.
- The consumer perspective. People who rely on home care services fear that they’d find it harder to get the support they need if the ruling is changed, since some home care agencies might go out of business and the same amount of federal and state funding would cover fewer hours of care.
|
