U.S. Supreme Court backs home-health aide rule

Long Island Business News, Jun 15, 2007 by Ross Daly

Maryann Osborne held her breath Monday as she took the call from her attorney, and didn't exhale until he broke the news.

"Thank God!" she exclaimed, and as her banker and partner looked on, she didn't need to explain. "They kind of knew from my reaction."

Osborne et al were waiting for word in the Westbury office of Long Island Care at Home Ltd., an agency that places home-health aides with patients. Ruling in a case involving the agency, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the nation's 1.4 million home-health workers are not eligible for overtime pay under federal law.

The unanimous decision upholds a 1975 U.S. Department of Labor regulation exempting such workers from the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The overtime case was brought in 2002 by Evelyn Coke of Corona, a retiree who worked more than two decades in the home-care industry and had been employed by Long Island Care at Home, which Osborne co- owns. Coke's lawyers challenged the Department of Labor's exemption regulation, which was produced after Congressional amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act; the plaintiffs argued that cutting off overtime pay for these aides was not Congress' intent.

Supporters of the exemption, including the Bush Administration, said the labor department was within bounds to interpret the law as it had.

That argument was persuasive enough to the Supreme Court, which, as written by Justice Stephen Breyer, ruled "courts should defer to the department's rule."

The Supreme Court's ruling was also welcomed by Roni Glaser, an attorney with Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone LLP in Mineola. Glaser worked on the case for the firm at the District Court level.

"The (Supreme) Court found that Congress intended to give the U.S. Department of Labor the ability to fill in any gaps in the legislation by making administrative rules," Glaser said. "The department did that, and they gave deference to the Department of Labor's interpretation of the rules."

Glaser, who attended the Supreme Court arguments in April, as did Osborne, said she felt vindicated that the original District Court ruling was ultimately supported.

"All along, the points that we made and points that were made by counsel at other levels - those were the points the Supreme Court relied on," Glaser said. "I'm happy for the agency itself, after five years of litigation, to get a ruling form the highest court in the land. Also, I'm happy for the industry."

The New York State Association of Health Care Providers Inc. also supported the decision. "HCP strongly supports fair and reasonable wages for home-care workers, but the home-care industry should not and cannot be penalized for adhering to regulations set forth by the U.S. Department of Labor," Association President Phyllis Wang said in a statement.

If the court had ruled the other way, Osborne said, it would have been devastating for her firm, which has 50 to 60 clients and employs 80 aides. "It would have made it impossible for us to do our jobs," she said, and would have driven up costs to the point where she would have to charge fees that many elderly or infirmed patients couldn't afford.

Glaser said foreseeable effects would have included agencies limiting aides to 40 hours per week, in many cases reducing their total income. Base salaries could have dropped as well, she said.

Harold Craig Becker, Coke's lead attorney, said he hoped Congress - or a new administration - would act to change the regulations.