Associations file emergency petition in companionship exemption case

Three associations have asked U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to delay enforcement of a court ruling that extends Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) protections to about 1.9 million home care workers.

 

Their emergency application, filed Sept. 24, seeks a delay in enforcement of the appeals court’s Aug. 21 ruling until the case is resolved by the Supreme Court.

 

Changing the overtime rules “threatens irreparable harm to the operations of home care providers and Medicaid payment models serving millions of elderly and disabled individuals, many of whom will lose access to vitally needed home care services as a result of the new rule,” attorneys Bill Dombi and Maurice Baskin argue in the application.

 

The three associations have not yet filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear their appeal.

 

As of now overtime changes are slated to take effect Oct. 13 (HHL 9/28/15). In the meantime, agencies should follow rules that previously had been in place.

 

It’s expected that a ruling on the request for an enforcement delay would come before Oct. 13, the Home Care Association of America (HCAOA) says in an alert.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Sept. 18 denied competing motions involving the companionship exemption. HCAOA, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) and the International Franchise Association had sought the delay in enforcement of the appeals court’s Aug. 21 ruling, while the Labor Department wanted enforcement prior to Oct. 13.

 

Labor’s attempt to change the requirement will have unintended consequences that will hurt consumers, argues Bob Roth, a consultant with OneSource HomeCare Consultants and managing partner of Cypress HomeCare Solutions in Phoenix. His agency is giving clients who need a great deal of care the option to pay overtime, cut back on hours of care received or have additional caregivers so overtime isn’t required.

 

In their motion to Roberts seeking a delay in enforcement, the associations argue there is a “reasonable probability” that the Supreme Court will hear the case, “a fair prospect” that the court will reverse the appeals court’s decision and a likelihood that irreparable harm will come from Roberts denying the application.

 

“Staying the mandate for the brief period of time necessary for this court to fully review the case is the most appropriate resolution of this litigation, insuring certainty for the entire industry and the millions of elderly and disabled consumers who depend on its vital services,” the emergency application states.