Court Rules Against Home Care Workers
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1085132440.jpg|width="180" height="122" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court ruled Monday that home care workers are not entitled to overtime pay under federal law. The unanimous decision upheld a 1975 Labor Department regulation exempting the nation's 1 million home care workers from the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that leaving home care workers without overtime protection under the act does not exceed the agency's authority and "courts should defer to the department's rule."
The case was brought by lawyers for Evelyn Coke, a 73-year-old retiree who spent more than two decades in the home care industry helping the ill and the elderly.
Now in failing health, Coke said her employer never paid her time and a half for all her extra hours on the job.
Lawyers for Coke challenged the Labor Department regulation, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ruled in the workers' favor.
The appeals court said it was "implausible" that Congress would have wanted the Labor Department to wipe out protection for an entire category of workers.
The Labor Department wrote the restrictive regulation after Congress expanded the law's coverage.
Paying overtime would cost billions, the home care industry says.
In New York City, the annual cost of the Medicaid-funded Personal Care Services Program would rise by at least a quarter of a billion dollars if the appeals court decision is allowed to stand, the city says. The Personal Care Services program pays 90 private companies to send 60,000 home attendants to the homes of low-income elderly and disabled.
Coke's former employer, Long Island Care at Home Ltd., says it would experience "tremendous and unsustainable losses" if it had to comply with federal overtime requirements.
The Bush administration and the company that employed Coke opposed her lawsuit.
If Congress had wanted to apply the law's wage and overtime provisions to such workers, "it easily could have done so," the Bush administration said in papers filed in the case. Instead, Congress assigned the secretary of labor the task of deciding the issue, the administration said.
Related listings
-
Jefferson pleads not guilty to bribery
Lawyer Blogs 06/08/2007[##_1L|1246101719.jpg|width="120" height="152" alt=""|_##]Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, accused of hiding $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer, pleaded not guilty on Friday to making and taking payoffs for helping to arrange business deals in A...
-
Ex-Alcatel exec pleads guilty to bribery
Lawyer Blogs 06/08/2007[##_1L|1370508144.jpg|width="150" height="153" alt=""|_##]A former Alcatel executive has pleaded guilty to paying more than $2.5 million in bribes to secure a telephone contract with Costa Rica's state telecommunications agency, the U.S. Department o...
-
Libby lawyers seek prison sentence delay
Lawyer Blogs 06/08/2007Lawyers for former US vice-presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby asked a federal judge Thursday to delay Libby's prison sentence because they felt they have a good chance of winning an appeal of his conviction. Libby was found guilty of perjury ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.