Posted on February 23, 2010 by Richard Tuschman

Is the Department of Labor Considering a Revision to the Domestic Service Exemption for Home Health Care Aides?

By Doug Weiner and Brian Molinari

We live in a time of change. Last summer fifteen United States senators wrote an open letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis to urge the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") to repeal the Domestic Service exemption from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the ("FLSA") for home health care workers. Secretary Solis has expressed support for the effort to review this exemption, with a view toward closing this "loophole." Citing a $9 an hour industry-wide average wage, the senators argued in favor of extending federal overtime requirements to "thousands of low-wage workers, primarily women, who are doing difficult, dangerous, yet extremely important work."   Furthering public debate on the subject, the New York Times on January 28 ran an editorial in support of eliminating the Domestic Service exemption for home care aides.

 

The Domestic Service Exemption

Under current federal regulations, home health care aides who assist the elderly and infirm are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 213(a)(15) (exempting "any 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 for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary)").  In 2007 the United States Supreme Court upheld the current Department of Labor regulation allowing this exemption against a strong legal challenge from organized labor.  Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007).

The exemption applies to all workers in domestic service who provide companionship services for individuals unable to care for themselves due to either physical or mental infirmity. Domestic service is work performed within the residence of the family using the services. Companionship services are those that provide fellowship, care and protection to the elderly and infirm.  29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a). Home health care workers, whether employed directly by the family or by an employer or agency other than the household using their services, are currently exempt from the FLSA

Some state laws have already narrowed the federal exemption. Pennsylvania, for example, exempts only home health care aides employed directly by a family for work performed within their home, excluding from the exemption workers employed by a placement agency. New York requires the payment of time-and-one-half the minimum wage for overtime hours worked. Wherever a state law provides greater protection to employees than the FLSA, the state law prevails over federal law.

Potential Effects

Eliminating or modifying this federal exemption may increase the burden to working families who want to care for their loved ones at home. A change in the Domestic Service exemption may also have significant consequences for employers who provide home health care workers to families. Employers of home health aides often conduct background checks and provide training to workers before they arrive in the home to offer care for a family’s loved ones. There is an ever present danger that if costs of home care become prohibitive, economics will operate to push the elderly and infirm out of the home into nursing homes, or other institutionalized setting.

We will continue to monitor and post developments on this significant issue.

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted on February 11, 2010 by David Barron

President Obama Backs Department of Labor Misclassification Fight

by Evan Spelfogel

On February 1, 2010, President Barack Obama released his federal budget for the coming fiscal year, including $117 billion for the United States Department of Labor, of which $25 million was set aside expressly to help the DOL combat employee misclassification. This includes, specifically, identifying and litigating against employers that categorize workers as independent contractors when, in fact, they are employees, and that classify as exempt from overtime those employees who do not meet the requirements of the White Collar Exemptions under Part 541 of the Wage and Hour Regulations.

The DOL will use a large portion of these funds to hire hundreds of investigators and other enforcement staff. The new Department of Labor Solicitor, Patricia Smith, will pursue a “Misclassification Initiative” to obtain, for misclassified employees, the wages, overtime pay, unemployment insurance benefits, social security contributions and health, welfare and pension benefits available to employees, but not to independent contractors.

Smith, it should be noted, was most recently Commissioner of Labor in New York State. In that capacity, she publicly identified misclassification as one of the most serious workplace problems today, and created a dedicated taskforce to attack the problem, encompassing representatives from a number of state government agencies, including labor, tax, unemployment insurance, workers compensation and labor relations.

 Now, more than ever, employers must have programs in place to insure the validity of their classification of workers as independent contractors or as exempt from overtime, and must have a clear strategy for handling government audits and enforcement actions. 
 
Employers should engage in proactive self-audits, in order to seek out and eliminate vulnerability. Companies should take the appropriate first steps to limit liability and protect their businesses, without raising “red flags.” Employers should check their IRS Form 1099s to identify those they have been paying as independent contractors. They should then audit their outside contractor and employee job descriptions, actual job duties and functions, and the degree of day-to-day control exerted by management, to determine who, in fact, is an independent contractor and who is an employee, and whether the employees are exempt or non-exempt under applicable wage and hour tests.
 
Employers should pay particular attention to matching duties and functions with the requirements for exemption under the managerial/supervisory, administrative and professional white-collar exemptions. Getting the company’s house in order before the government’s “knock on the door” may save time, attorneys fees and the actual and intangible cost of administrative and civil litigation.
 
The consequences of worker misclassification, both as to independent contractors and overtime exempt employees, may be severe. Individual, class and collective actions concerning workers’ status are proliferating. Companies are facing larger judgments, ramifications and costs, as one case sparks another. The expense to employers can be staggering, including back-pay with interest, liquidated damages, stock options awarded at years-ago, lower prices and legal fees. Misclassification cases are lucrative for plaintiffs’ lawyers, particularly when they can assert class and collective claims and work on a contingent-fee basis. The announcement of additional funds made available to the DOL under the president’s budget and the confirmation of Patricia Smith as Solicitor of the Department of Labor should provide a wake-up call to employers. 
 
For additional information, please see Mr. Spelfogel’s published article titled: “Misclassification: The Profusion, The Cost, and the Remedy” (NYSBA L&E Newsletter, Vol. 34, No. 1 at page 7, Spring 2009).

 

Tags:
Posted on February 3, 2010 by Richard Tuschman

Child Labor Penalties Increased for Violations that Cause Death or Serious Injury

By Doug Weiner

Hazardous occupations are no place for employees under the age of 18. Employers must be certain to prohibit minors from operating power driven wood working machines, metal working machines, bakery machines, fork lifts, balers and compactors, meat slicers, and nail guns. The full list of hazardous occupations are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 570, et. seq. Protecting America’s children in the workplace has long been a stated objective of the U.S. Department of Labor, and the civil money penalties for serious violations have recently been strengthened.

On January 20 the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division issued guidelines to enforcement personnel for determining appropriate civil money penalties against employers who violate the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As stated in Field Assistance Bulletin 2010-1, the guidelines “draw heavily on the child labor civil money penalty process the WHD [Wage Hour Division]  has developed over the past 25 years.” In addition, there is new advice resulting from the FLSA amendments that became effective May 21, 2008 with the enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

 

The DOL has created a Child Labor Enhanced Penalty Program (CLEEP) to incorporate GINA’s stiffer penalties. A “CLEEP serious injury” is defined as one caused by a child labor violation resulting in a permanent loss or substantial impairment of one of the senses, or of the function or movement of specified body parts. The bulletin identifies categories of injuries, and provides higher penalties for more serious injuries. 

 

GINA included an amendment to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(e), providing a penalty of $50,000 for a violation causing death or serious injury to an employee under the age of 18. The penalty may be doubled to $100,000 if the violation is willful or repeated. Prior to GINA’s amendment, the maximum child labor civil money penalty was $11,000.

 

For GINA’s enhanced penalties to be applicable there must be evidence to prove the violation of a specific Child Labor Hazardous Order directly caused the death or serious injury of an employee under 18. The January 20 Field Assistance Bulletin sets forth detailed examples of violations that cause injuries as opposed to injuries that occur while employed in violation of a child labor hazardous order.

 

Of course no one wants an accident to occur to anyone at any time. However, in light of the DOL’s increased enforcement authority in the area of child labor, employers are well advised to verify the ages of their employees. If an employee is under the age 18, it is mandatory to ensure the employee is not permitted to engage in any prohibited activities.

Tags: , , , ,